Skip to main content

Full text of "Islam And Modernism By Shaykh Mufti Taqi Usmani"

See other formats




i • > 


»n<Biid By 
Dr. Mohammed S\%;iU'h Siddi(|iii 

Revised <^ kdited By: 
Mohammad Wali Raazi 

> ■> 



For the last twenty seven years I have been writing on different 
aspects of the practical implementation of Islam and Islamic 
solution of ever new problems arising in the different spheres of 
life. Most of those articles were being published in the monthly 
Journal "ALBALAGH". A collection of such articles had been 
published in Urdu about seventeen years ago under the caption 
"Asr-e-Hazir Mein Islam Kaiysay Nafiz Ho?" (How to Implement 
Islam in the present time?) comprising of about 750 pages. 

Even after the publication of this book I had the opportunity of 
writing on other aspects of the same subject, and friends expressed 
a desire that these latter articles may also be included in the same 
book. But I found that an addition of these articles in that book 
would make it a voluminous book, making it difficult for the 
readers to get full benefit from it. Further, these articles pertained 
to different topics like politics, law, economy, education, social life 
and individual reforms, etc., and a book of that size would have a 
disadvantage for those who would be interested in a single topic for 
which they would have to buy the whole book, many of whose 
articles may not be of their interest. For this reason I thought that it 
would be more appropriate to compile articles on different subjects 
separately, rather than collecting them in one book. I, therefore, 
rearranged my articles under the following titles and published 
them in the form of booklets in Urdu. 

1. Implementation of Islamic Law and its problems. 

2. Islam and present day politics. 

3. Islam and Modernism. 

4. Our Education System. 

5. Reforming the Conduct of an Individual. 

6. The life and message of the Holy Prophet (Sallal la ho Alay hi 

7. Reforms in the Social Life. 

8. Our Economic System. 

9. Muslims and Qadiyanism. 

Page 2 of 92 

Of these nine collections the one "Islam aur Jiddat Pasandi" was 
published about two years ago and its English version is now being 
presented under the name of "Islam and Modernism". 

May Almighty Allah make it beneficial for the Muslims and may it 
be a source of Allah's reward in the Hereafter. 

Muhammad Taqi Usmani. 

Page 3 of 92 



Search for "Modernity" by itself is a commendable desire and a 
natural urge of humankind. If this urge was not there, man would 
not have reached from stone-age to atomic era, could not have 
gained access to aero-planes and spacecrafts from camels and 
bullock carts, nor would have progressed to electric bulbs and 
search lights from wax candles and earthen lamps. All these 
material advancements and scientific achievements, which have 
put nooses on the planets and conducted their buckets to the bottom 
of sea, are in fact an importunate effect of man's inherent trait that 
he is a "modernist" and avaricious of "better to best" achievements. 

Hence Islam, being a natural religion, is not opposed to modernism 
as far as it implies to be modern in the simple sense of the word. 
Very often it has been appreciated and given due encouragement. 
Particularly the use of latest and newer methods in industry and 
craft and war technologies is proved from prophetic traditions. On 
the occasion of battle of Ahz' ab when the tribes of Arabia joined 
together and raided Madina, a renowned companion Salman F'arsi 
suggested a new technique for its defence which was never 
practiced in Arabia before. He suggested digging of a trench 
around the city. This was hailed by the Prophet (PBUH) and he 
himself took part in digging the trench (Al-bidayah wan-Nih'ayah 

On the advice of Salman F' arsi the Prophet used two new weapons 
in the battle of Ta'if which, according to some narration, were 
constructed by Salman himself. One of them was a 'catapult' 
which served as a cannon of the time; the second was "Dababah" 
the Tank of the time (Albidayal wan-Nih'ayahy 4:95). 

Not only this, but Ibn-e-Kathir has reported that the Prophet 
(PBUH) had sent two of his companions, namely 'Urwah Ibn 
Mas'ud and Ghitan lbn Salmah to the city of Jarash in Syria to 
learn the techniques of manufacturing Dababas, Manjaniq 
(catapult) and Dhabur. Jarash was the famous industrial town of 
Syria and Dhabur was a weapon similar to Dababa which was used 
by Romans in their wars. These two companions could not take 

Page 4 of 92 

part in the battle of Hunayn and Ta'if because they were in Syria 
learning this technology (Tabqat-e-Ibne-Sa'ad vol 2, p. 221, Tarikh 
Tabri p. 353 vol. 2., Albidayah wan-Nih' ayah p. 345 vol 4). 

Ibn-e-Jarir has reported that the Prophet (PBUH) had asked the 
people of Madinah to promote agriculture by increased cultivation 
and use of camel skulls in their fields for increased production 
(Kinzul-'Ammal p. 199 vol: 2). 

According to one narration the Prophet advised people to promote 
their business by increasing trade in clothes because a cloth- 
merchant always wishes that the people remain prosperous and free 
from worries (Kanz-ul 'Ammal p. 199, vol. 2). 

Also he persuaded many people to go to Oman and Egypt for trade 
(Kanz-ul- 'Ammal p. 197, vol. 2) 

To get the benefits of agriculture and minerals he said: 

(Seek your living in the hidden wealth of the Earth) (Kanz-ul 
'Ammal p. 197, vol. 2). 

The people of Arabia were ignorant of naval fleet, but the Prophet 
(PBUH) had joyously predicted that some of his people will travel 
through the sea for Jeh' ad in the way of Allah as if they are kings 
on a throne (Sahih Bukhari, kitab-ul-Jeh ad). He described several 
virtues of the first naval fleet of the Muslims. Consequently 
Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (RA) prepared the first naval fleet during the 
caliphate of Hadhrat Usman Ghani (RA). This enabled the access 
of Muslims to Cyprus, Rhodes, Crates and Sicily and then the 
entire Mediterranean Sea came under their command. 

Hadhrat 'Amr bin 'Aas (RA) in the year 8.AH used the method of 
"Blackout" during the war of Zat-us-salasil against Lakhm and 
Juzam, and ordered his troops that there should be no lights nor any 
fire kindled for three nights in the battlefield. When the troops 
reached Madinah and the Prophet (PBUH) came to know of it he 
inquired the reasons for this action. 'Amr bin 'Aas replied "O 
Messenger of Allah, my troops were less in number than the enemy 
troops, hence I ordered to keep all lights off at night lest the enemy 
may boost its morale by finding the low count of our troops". The 

Page 5 of 92 

Prophet was pleased with this tactic and offered his thanks to 
Almighty Allah (Jam 'a 
-ul-Fawa'id p. 27, vol.2). 

These are a few examples of the Prophetic era which have been 
casually mentioned. The aim of this description was to emphasize 
that Islam has not objected to any modern advancement just 
because it is recent and modern. Rather it has encouraged 
modernity for rightful purposes and within rightful limits. 

However, in its own sphere it remains a reality that whereas 
modernity has elevated man's material status to great heights, 
given him newer inventions and provided him with better means of 
comfort and ease in life, it has, at the same time, caused man to 
suffer from many depravities and led him to many disastrous ends. 
It is due to the same modernity that human history is full of 
Pharaohs and Shiddads who were not contented with any limit of 
power and authority. Their lust for authority took them to the 
extent of claiming deification for themselves. The same modernity 
gave birth to Hitler and Mussolini whose ever increasing urge for 
expanding territorial boundaries demanded a new piece of land 
every day. It is the same modernity that has engulfed the whole 
world in the tornado of nudity and obscenity, and has provided an 
excuse for fornication, and more so it has led, under thunder claps 
to the passage of a bill in the British House of Commons to legalize 
homosexuality. It is in the shadow of the same modernity that 
Western women are openly displaying banners on the streets 
demanding legalization of abortion. And it is the same modernity 
which is providing argument for justifying marriage with true 
sisters, daughters and other blood relations. 

It proves that "Modernity" is a double-edged sword which can be 
used for the benefit of mankind and to cut its Own throat. Hence 
any new thing is neither acceptable just for being new nor refutable 
just because it is new. That much is clear and obvious but the most 
important question is, "What is the criterion to decide which 
invention is useful and acceptable and which is harmful and not 

One way to determine this standard is to follow the dictates of 
reason alone. Hence, in secular societies this decision rests with 
logic and reasoning. But the difficulty in it is that those people who 
robbed humanity of all the attributes of morality and character in 

Page 6 of 92 

the name of 'Modernity' and put it on the road to barbarism and 
brutality were all men of reason and philosophy, and there were 
none among them who had not made pure intellect as their guide. 
The reason is that once free of the Divine Guidance of Wahy 
'intellect' becomes a beloved of every Tom, Dick and Harry, so 
that each of the different kinds of contradictory elements, consider 
it to be their exclusive property, while in fact it belongs to none of 
them. In such an "Intellect" one can find glamorous justifications 
for every evil concept and filthiest of action. For example, the 
names of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cause humanity to sweat with 
shame, but the scholarly and world-famous book "Encyclopedia 
Britannica" has mentioned the disasters caused by Atomic Bombs 
in these cities after the introductory sentence as follows: 
"Former Prime Minister Winston Churchill estimated that by 
shortening the war the Atomic Bomb had saved the lives of 
10,000,00 US soldiers and 250,000 British soldiers". (Britannica 
vol.2, p. 647, 1950). 

Several examples of similar rational interpretations can be 
presented. With due apologies to modesty I would like to present 
another example in the light of which the correct position of pure 
intellect would become clear. 

In the history of Islam there has passed a sect known as 
'Batiniyah'. A renowned leader of this sect Ubayd-ullah alQirwani 
has written: 

'>.U-a c-i^i e**M «0 (ajG (rfJiJi c^-o- <>-j t»»>— 3**JtftJ-k ©• v?«iiUj 

"What can be more surprising that a person having claim to 
wisdom acts so stupidly that he has with him a beautiful sister or 
daughter. His wife is not so pretty, he marries his daughter or sister 
to a stranger. If these ignorant ones had any trace of wisdom they 
would have known that they themselves had a greater right on their 
sisters and daughters than a stranger. The main reason of this 
stupidity is that their Master has forbidden good things on them." 

Page 7 of 92 

No matter how you react to this disgusting and repulsive statement, 
it is an obvious example of what havoc is caused by human reason 
when it is not guided by Divine Guidance. What argument is there 
with reason to reject this hideous suggestion of marrying ones real 
daughter and sister? Hence we see that the dream of 'Ubayd-ulla 
Qirwani is coming true centuries afterwards, and voices are being 
raised in some Western countries to legalise marriages with real 

In short, carried away by the wave of Modernity, if the decision for 
good and bad is left on reason alone the result will be that no value 
of life will remain intact. Besides, man will be lost in the labyrinth 
of contradictory opinions and concepts from which no way out can 
be traced. The intellectual level of every person is different from 
the other. The reason is that, independence from the Divine 
Guidance of Wahy is regarded by man as freedom, but in fact he 
becomes the slave of his beastly passions and sensual desires. This, 
is the worst form of servility. In the Qur'anic phraseology it is 

termed as Haw-a( lj *)that is passion, and it is about this that the 
Qur'an declared: 

"If Truth becomes subjected to their passions great tumult will 
occur between the earth and skies and the creations therein." 


A group of philosophers has been mentioned in the discussions of 
Legal Theory. Their concept of morality is called the Cognivist 
Theory. The famous legal expert Dr. Friedman has summarized 
this view in his book "Legal Theory" in these words: 

"Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions and can 
never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them" 

The end result to be derived from this view, in the words of Dr. 
Friedman, is: 

"Every thing else but also words like 'good', 'bad', 'ought', 
'worthy' are purely emotive, and there cannot be such thing as 
ethical or moral science" (pp. 36-37). 

Page 8 of 92 

However bad or wrong this view may be to form the basis of moral 
conceptions, it provides a true and realistic interpretation of secular 
reasoning. Factually, there can be no other outcome of submission 
to secular reason that no such thing as "Morality" should exist in 
the world, and nothing but passions should govern the words and 
deeds of man. In fact secular reasoning and 'morality' can never go 
together because a stage is arrived in the pursuit of 'modernity' 
when a man's conscience regards an action as bad yet he feels 
bound to adopt it because 'modernity' and secular reasoning offer 
no argument to reject it. The western thinkers of today are 
helplessly facing the same predicament. A large number of British 
thinkers do not like the legalization of homosexuality adopted by 
the Parliament a few years ago but they were obliged to accept it 
because in the doctrine of a purely intellectual "modernity" there 
remains no option but to legalize every evil that has prevailed in 
the society. How admonishing are the words of the Wolfender 
Committee which was appointed to consider this issue: 

"Unless a deliberate attempt is made by society acting through the 
agency of the law to equate this fear of crime with that of sin, there 
Must remain a realm of private morality and immorality which in 
brief and crude terms is not the law's business." (The Legal 

In fact, once reason alone is made a judge to decide what is good 
and bad Man will be deprived of every standard that may be used 
as a basis to stop a new practice harmful to society. Reason has to 
be made to follow Divine standard of good and bad. 
The law-makers are extremely worried that in the presence of the 
general trend of modernity what method can be adopted through 
which at least some exalted human values might be preserved. An 
American judge Carduzo has written that the most important legal 
need of today is that a philosophy of law should be organized 
which could create a harmony between the contradictory and 
antagonistic demands of stationary and revolutionary values. But 
the fact is that this job cannot be done through reason and 
philosophy. The entire disruption has started because the function 
of Wahy (Divine Revelations) has been imposed on the intellect of 
Man and in this way a burden has been placed on his shoulders 
which he cannot bear. It is only on the basis of some valid 
arguments that a law can be called perpetual and free of changes, 

Page 9 of 92 

but the human intellect is incapable of producing any such 
argument. Today some people may regard a law as unalterable on 
the basis of their reasons but tomorrow others may realize that it is 
not fit to be a perpetual law and they would declare it alterable. 
The only solution to the problem is that instead of making himself 
a slave of his passions he should submit to the Being Who created 
him and the entire universe. Since that Being is fully aware of all 
the changes that would occur, no body else can determine which 
principles of law are unalterable. 

The famous author of jurisprudence, George Paton, has written: 

"What interests should the real legal system protect? This is a 
question of values in which legal philosophy plays its part.... But 
however Much we desire the help of philosophy, it is difficult to 
obtain. No agreed scale of values has ever been reached indeed. It 
is only in religion that we can find a basis, and the truth of religion 
Must be accepted by faith or invitation and not purely on the result 
of logical argument." (Portion: Jurisprudences p. 121). 

In short secular intellect has totally failed to define good and bad. 
Hence there is no solution to the problem except that Man should 
seek guidance from God and follow the revealed doctrines. There 
is no other way of salvation for humanity. The Qur'an said: 

"Is he who has a clear proof from his Lord like those to whom their 
evil deeds are made alluring and they follow their caprices?" 
(Muhammad: 14) 

Hence the only solution to the problem is that every new trend or 
custom and convention should be judged, not on its apparent shine 
and glitter but on the basis of standards laid down by Allah, the 
Lord of the Universe Once one finds any injunctions of Allah and 
His Messenger concerning it, then it must be followed without the 
least hesitation. The Qur'an says: 

Page 10 of 92 

"And it is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when 
Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter to have choice in 

their matter" (Q: 33:35) 

Another verse of the Holy Quran speaks: 

"But no, by your Lord, They will not believe until they make you 

(O Prophet) the judge of what is in dispute between them, then find 

no vexation in their hearts over what you decide and submit with 

full submission". (Q:4:65) 

Whatever injunctions Allah has revealed in His Book or through 
His Messenger (PBUH) pertain to such matters that if they are let 
to be decided by reason they have led to aberrance; and since Allah 
is well aware of all the past and future happenings only His 
commands can be obeyed in every time. Hence it is stated: 

"Allah makes clear (His commandments) to you, lest you go 
astray. And Allah is Knower of every thing." (Q: 4:176) 

This makes another thing about "Modernity" very clear that the 
need for Divine Revelations (Wahy) and commandments of Allah 
was felt because it was difficult to achieve true guidance in this 
matter through intellect alone. It is, therefore, essential that the 
Divine Injunctions be followed exactly as they are. It is a wrong 
practice that any prevalent custom of the time be first taken as 
correct on the basis of self-reasoning, and then attempts be made to 
fit the Qur'an and Traditions to it by making distant interpretations. 
Such a method cannot be called submission to the Will of Allah. 

Page 11 of 92 

Rather it amounts to alteration and amendments for which no man 
is authorized, because that would annul the very purpose of 
sending Divine Guidance. True submission means that the 
commandments of Allah should never be allowed to be altered or 
modified even if the entire mankind collectively so desire. Allah 

"And perfect are the words of your Lord in truthfulness and justice; 
there is none who can change His words; and He is the Hearer, the 
Knower. And if you (O Prophet) obey most of those on earth they 
would lead you astray from Allah's way. They follow nothing but 
surmise, and they do but guess. Surely your Lord knows best who 

astrays from His way. And He knows best who are rightly guided." 

(Q: 6:115-117) 

"(And when Our clear revelations are recited to them) those who 

hope not for the meeting with Us say, "Bring a Qur'an other than 

this or alter it. Say (O Prophet) "It is not for me to alter it of my 

own accord, I follow nothing, except what is revealed to me (Q: 

10: 15). 

This kind of true obedience may bring opposition of the people and 
one may face difficulties but those who stand this test of the time, 
are rightly guided in this world and the Hereafter. Allah says: 

Page 12 of 92 

"And those who strive in Our way, We shall certainly guide them 
in Our ways. Indeed Allah is with the good-doers." (Q: 2:69) 

It is not the way of a true Muslim that he accepts what he finds to 
fulfill his material desires and rejects what calls for some material 
loss or puts him through some trials. This attitude, in Qur'anic 
terms, leads one to lose both in this world and in the Hereafter. 

"And among Mankind is he who worships Allah upon the very 

edge — so that if good befalls him he is contented with it, but if a 

trial befalls him he turns round on his face. He loses this world and 

the Hereafter. That is indeed a manifest loss." (Q: 22:11) 

The only way to judge between desirable and undesirable 
modernism is to examine it in the light of Qur'anic injunctions. If it 
is not in opposition to Allah's Commandments it may be accepted 
otherwise it must be rejected without misinterpreting and distorting 
it even though it may be against the common trend of time. 
Reproaches and mockery coming from the people should not be 
allowed to change his firm belief. A true Muslim has a clear 
answer to such negative remarks provided by. the Qur'an: 

-u^lM&JJjJt^ZJL^JiSj&l '-4*1 

"Allah mocks at them and lets them loose in their impertinence in 
which they keep wandering." (2:15) 

This attitude is meant for such affairs of life as have been ordained 
to be Obligatory, Incumbent, Traditional, Desirable or Forbidden 
and Detestable. Hence these injunctions are unalterable in every 
period. However, for things that fall under the category of being 
"permissible" man has been authorized to adopt or to abandon 
them according to the needs and demands of time. In fact, there are 

Page 13 of 92 

very few matters which Islamic Law has explicitly defined as 
Obligatory, Incumbent, Traditional, Desirable, Forbidden and 
Detestable, and are unalterable. On the contrary, most of the affairs 
of life fall under the category of "permissible" and decisions about 
their adoption or rejection can be made according to requirements. 

We can see that the field of activity with regard to modernism as 
provided by Islam is very vast in which one can live a modern life 
without deviating from the way of Allah in the least. In them Man 
may apply his intellectual abilities and may achieve enormous 
heights of knowledge, discoveries as well as Science and 
Technology, and make them more and more useful for mankind. 

The greatest challenge for the Islamic world today is to recognize 
these limits of "Modernity", without interfering with the confined 
limits of unalterable injunctions of Islam. Unfortunately the present 
attitude of the Islamic world is in clear contrast to this. Our 
scholars have been markedly slow in the spheres which demanded 
their active efforts, while they are actively busy modernizing the 
unalterable Commandments of Allah with the consequence that 
Muslims are deprived of the amenities and comforts that modern 
time has provided to humanity and the evils of modernism are at 
liberty to prevail in our society with no check from our side. May 
Almighty Allah give us the ability and courage to fulfill our 
obligations to modern times while safeguarding our ideological 

Page 14 of 92 



Life is constantly on the move. Every new era is associated with 
new circumstances and fresh problems. But the great revolution 
which the world has experienced after the invention of Machine, 
has affected every sphere of life. It has opened the doors of 
research and observation for every art and science, and has created 
some new problems in every section of life. If we look into the 
teachings of religions other than Islam we find that they are not 
capable of absorbing the great revolution in them. The 
fountainhead of these teachings was human intellect rather than the 
Divine Revelation (Wahy), hence they had neither a full cognition 
of human nature nor were they based on the considerations of 
changing circumstances of time, nor did they have an insight on the 
possible future happenings. The result is that most of the original 
teachings of those religions have died under the loads of machines. 
Now there exist only two possibilities before the followers of these 
religions. They have to say good bye to their religion if they want 
to keep pace with the march of time, and if their religion is dearer 
to them they have to turn away from the light of thought and 
cognition and make themselves an isolated group of people who do 
not belong to the twentieth century. However, some people have 
designed an intermediary way to reshape and modify their religion 
in order to make it practicable for the present time. But, obviously 
he is the follower of his own whims and not his true religion. In 
this case he is deprived of the religion he followed before. But the 
matter of Islam is totally different. This is the only religion in the 
world whose guidance is ever fresh. No revolutions and 
circumstances make it old. It is fresh today and it will remain fresh 
as long as the world exists. The reason is obvious. Its percepts and 
injunctions are not the product of the human brain which is 
unaware of the coming events. The source of its teachings is the 
Divine Revelations. The Being who made it the code of life for 
Mankind is the One who is the Creator of Mankind and the entire 
universe. He has full knowledge of Man's nature and his needs. He 
is fully aware of the changing circumstances and He knows what is 
going to happen when and where. 

Page 15 of 92 

It is the miracle of His words that, the rules and regulations laid 
down by Him in the Qur'an and those preached by His last 
messenger Muhammad (PBUH) encircle all problems arising till 
the last day. The world may turn to one side or the other these 
teachings will continue to provide with. The principles and laws of 
Islam would always suffice for all times to come. 

But it is a pity that a group of people in the Islamic world known as 
"Modernists" have been unable to get this reality. That is why, in 
taking their lead from other religions, they have started a campaign 
of alterations and innovations in Islam. They have made it their 
duty to prove that every exhibit of the industrial revolution is 
consistent with Islam. After every such alteration and innovation 
they present their only argument that Islamic Injunctions must 
change because the world has greatly changed after the industrial 
revolution bringing about revolutionary changes in thought and 

In this connection we wish to point out two types of changes that 
have occurred in every walk of life as a result of the industrial 
revolution of Europe. Some of them were inevitable for the present 
advancements and without them it was not possible for Science and 
Technology to have attained the present standard. It was due to 
these that the world had benefited by the latest inventions, large 
factories came into being, bridges have been constructed, big dams 
and useful additions to human knowledge have been made. This 
aspect of the industrial revolution is indeed commendable and it is 
imperative for the Islamic world to progress in this field. Islam 
does not place any obstacle in this direction. Rather, it looks at this 
achievement of power with approbation. 

But, at the same time, there are some changes that are not at all 
essential for industrial and material progress. The West has 
associated them to industrial revolution for no reason, and now 
realizing this error is sighing with grief. Obscenity and nudity, free 
mixing of men and women, music and dances, interest and birth 
control are things that have nothing to do with material and 
industrial progress. Experience has proved that these things have 
served as an obstacle rather than assistance towards progress. 

This is the evil from which the Islamic world has to save itself very 
diligently. Industrial revolution in the Islamic world has become a 

Page 16 of 92 

necessity, but it should be a revolution free of the profanities of 
Western civilization which have led them to the brink of total 
destruction. Unfortunately, our modernist group wants us to accept 
the industrial revolution of the West as it is, without an iota of 
change in it, and thus drown ourselves in their ideological and 
practical aberrances even before the Machine has taken roots in our 
society. That is why, instead of developing Science and 
Technology, this group is spending its energy in molding Islam to 
bring it in conformity with Western civilization. Supporting this 
new viewpoint the official spokesman of monthly 'Fikr-o-Nazar' 
of the Institute of Islamic Research, writes as under: 

"The entire life style of Pakistan will be changed after the 
completion of the fourth five-year plan. The rule of machine will 
prevail, and due to this family life will change, economy and social 
values will change, there will be changes in the relations between 
man and woman, and obviously, individual and collective thinking 
will be affected, and people will think more positively". (Fikr-o- 
Nazar p. 733, voL2, p. 12) 

It is obvious that such people do not want to make any distinction 
between the industrial revolution of the Islamic World and that of 
the West. Our humble submission is that the "rule of machine" in 
the industrial sphere is not negated, what we think highly 
venomous are the changes in the family life, economy and social 
values, relationship of man and woman and the thought of general 

These "changes" do not match with the temperament of Islamic 
ideologies. A study of Industrial Revolution of the West itself leads 
us to think that we shall have to abstain from these "changes" if we 
want to lead a peaceful life despite the sway of machine in our 

The philosopher-poet of Pakistan, Iqbal, had a deep insight into the 
state of West, he said: 

ofy*"3- AAj£f>£&&ty 

'Christianity (in Europe) is blackened with the smoke of 


Page 17 of 92 


"The rule of machine is the death of soul. Instruments only crush 

the sense of tolerance." 

It will not be proper to deduce from the above that he was allergic 
to machines and instruments or that he opposed the progress of 
Technology. What he means is that the evil which the West has 
imposed on them along with the machines is detestable and should 
be avoided. 

Under the present circumstances proper line of action for us is that 
in the pursuit of industrial revolution we should not blindly march 
on the path that has carried the West to the brink of total 
destruction. The industrial revolution will give rise to many 
difficulties and new problems, which will be resolved under the 
Islamic guidance and this solution, will be free from the defects of 
the Western thought. Rather, we should acquire science and 
technology with deep insight and open mind in a manner that 
Islamic values are not injured. 

On the contrary, if alteration and innovation is carried out in Islam 
itself, to fit it into the framework of Western civilization and, 
somehow or the other, it is molded to meet the requirement of the 
modern time, what credit goes to Islam for this? In this manner any 
religion can be brought in conformity with the present time by 
twisting and distorting it. There are many who demonstrated such 
artistry in their religions. The credit of this goes to them and not to 
the poor religion that became a plaything in their hands. We 
honestly feel that Islam cannot be matched with other religions. 
Treating Islam in this manner is by no means justified, and any 
such attempt will be an interpolation in religion and hence 

No doubt many injunctions of Islam are flexible enough to accept 
changes in varying circumstances. But there are certain prescribed 
rules which must be observed when applying these to new 
problems. It does not mean that every Islamic injunction can be 

Page 18 of 92 

dissolved in the ready- made mixture of modern necessities. It may 
be understood that the Islamic injunctions prescribed by the 
Qur'an, the Sunnah and by the consensus of the Ummah are fixed 
and unalterable. They cannot be changed in any period. However, 
in the matters, which can be influenced by change of time, the 
Holy Qur'an and Sunnah have provided us with some basic 
principles without giving specific commandment for a specific 
condition. These principles can be used as a basis for the 
deductions of new injunctions in every period. Had Islam permitted 
the people of every time to deduce Islamic injunctions according to 
their circumstances and in opposition to the unanimous decisions 
of the Muslim Ummah, it would not have provided us with such 
comprehensive and detailed commandments in every sphere of life. 
Rather, it would have said, "Keep making your own 
commandments according to your circumstances." On the contrary, 
Islam has provided us with specific and elaborate precepts with 
divine wisdom in order that they are to be observed up to the end 
of time. In short, these Islamic injunctions are fixed and cannot be 
changed simply because time has changed. They are not only 
practicable up to the Day of Judgment but they, in fact, hold the 
key to real material progress of the Muslims. 

There are injunctions, the Qur'an and traditions have themselves 
left to be decided by time, which are alterable. They can be 
changed, and are being changed, according to the circumstances. 
But in the guise of this flexibility our modernists not only try to 
change those unanimously accepted injunctions that are being 
accepted as established for the last fourteen centuries but they 
desire to make amends even in certain beliefs that are against the 
clear and explicit injunctions of the Quran and Sunnah, though not 
accepted by a single person of any significance. 

In case we allow this attitude to be correct it would imply that no 
basic belief of Islam has been understood by any one in the last 
fourteen hundred years. It requires our serious thought if such a 
religion is worthy of being followed by any sensible person? 
How funny it is that our modernists feel the change of time only 
when they want to give religious sanction to an activity or when 
they want to seek approval to a thought or practice of western 
ideology. On the contrary, when the change of time demands labor 
or some hard work they do not even think of it. For example, the 
modernists have made loud claims that usury and interest should be 

Page 19 of 92 

made permissible because time has changed but none of them ever 
demanded that the concessions in the Salah (Five daily prayers of 
worship) and Fasting during journeys should be withdrawn because 
the change of time has made journey far more comfortable and 
easy than it was in olden days. They never insisted that these 
facilities should be withdrawn in modern time and they were meant 
only for the time foregone. 

The hedonistic attitude of Modernism can be well conceived with 
this diversity of action. In fact all its arguments are designed for 
their pre-conceived ideas. Since their aim is to infuse Western 
ideologies in Islam they look for any situation where this may be 
achieved and they use, any trivial thing they find, as an argument, 
no matter how transient and superfluous it may be. Whereas the 
same argument is simply ignored when it turns against their 
intentions. How I wish that our Modernists think over these 
submissions seriously and realistically and their able efforts are 
spent on some constructive service instead of distorting or 
innovating the Islamic guidance. 

Page 20 of 92 



"Religious scholars (Ulema) should behave according to the 
demands of time". This is a catchword we hear in a new style 
almost every day. Most of our secular minded leaders are repeating 
this suggestion off and on. And now we hear the echo of this 
suggestion even in our high level social gatherings whenever a 
religious subject comes under discussion. A group of people in our 
country is busy in surgical maneuvers on the explicit injunctions of 
Islam and its established principles under the guise of modernism. 
They regard religious scholars as the biggest obstacle in their path. 
They consider that their success depends on baseless accusations 
and malicious propaganda against religious scholars in whichever 
way it is possible. For this, they have adopted the ambiguous 
phrase "Demands of Time" as a hypnotizer for the modern minds, 
and make this a basis for their repeated appeals to the people and 
the government that religious scholars are the biggest obstacle in 
the way of progress and hence no heed should be paid to them and 
to what they say. 

We leave them at the will of Allah from Whom no secrets of hearts 
are hidden. But there are some people who quite sincerely and 
seriously feel that religious scholars are unaware of the needs and 
demands of the modem age, and it is a result of this ignorance that 
they oppose every new thing. In these lines we wish to address this 
very group of people. But before this we humbly submit that if they 
are really well-wishers of Islam and Muslims they should give a 
cool thought to this matter and, for a little while, make free their 
minds from the grip of such hasty suggestions and try to 
understand what is meant by the "Demands of Time" and what is 
the best method of fulfilling it? With unbiased minds they should 
examine these allegations against the Ulema, the Islamic scholars. 

The first thing to be defined is the phrase "Meeting the Demands of 
Time"? We feel that those who are so forcefully preaching the 
importance of demands of time themselves do not have a clear 
conception of these demands. They are simply making the 
ambiguous claims that religious scholars are opposed to the 
Demands of Time. But they never made it clear as to what those 

Page 21 of 92 

specific demands are which are opposed by the Ulema. If by the 
"Demands of Time" they mean that Muslims should endeavor to 
equip themselves with all the means of science and technology 
without which it is not possible to survive as a free nation in the 
world of today then indeed this is the greatest need and demand of 
this time. For God's sake tell us who is the single scholar who 
forbids this most important demand of time? Which of these 
scholars, and when, has issued any verdict (Fatwa) that progress in 
the fields of science and technology is forbidden, unlawful, 
meaningless or useless? Science has made amazing progress in the 
recent years and it is in progress. Even in our life-time we have 
seen that newer inventions are coming up every day. How many of 
them have been opposed by the religious scholars? Electricity, 
Telegraphy, Telephone, Teleprinter, Wireless Radio, Transistors, 
Tape Recorders, Cars, Heavy Motor Vehicles, Aero planes, 
Steamers, Trains, Tanks, Mortars, Fighter Planes, Bombers, 
Submarines, Warships, Rockets, Missiles, Radar, Industrial 
Machines, Factories, Tractors, Chemical Fertilizers, Insecticides 
and Pesticides, Surgical Instruments, X-ray & other Radiological 
Machines are in use with religious sanction of Islam. All sources of 
knowledge in Arts, Science, Commerce, Mathematics, Geography, 
Geology, Astronomy, Civics, and Politics are some examples of 
material progress. Which of these has ever been opposed by 
religious scholars or any obstacles been placed in their way? 

The history of the past twenty years of our developing country is a 
witness to the fact that by the Grace of Allah our country has 
advanced by leaps and bounds in material and economic progress 
perfectly corresponding to the wishes of our righteous religious 
scholars and religious circles. Many of the great economic schemes 
have been completed during this period, large factories have been 
erected, vast network of roadways constructed, numerous canals 
dug out for irrigation, many dams were made, the old 
communication system was replaced with new inventions, many 
colleges and universities for various sciences and arts came into 
existence and barren land was cultivated. Only an insane person 
can feel unhappy about these advancements. Once again I ask our 
modernists to point out just one religious scholar who ever opposed 
these achievements, or ever criticized production of expert 
scientists or educating people in engineering, or constructing 
roadways, factories, bridges, canals, river dams, using advanced 
technology in arms and ammunition for the country's defense, or 

Page 22 of 92 

ever suggested that our army should not be trained in modern 
machine warfare, or that the latest telecommunication means 
should not be adopted, or education and training in modern arts and 
sciences should be stopped. 

If none of the religious scholars has ever opposed it there can be no 
other interpretation of these baseless accusations except malice and 
enmity against the righteous scholars of Islam. We know, not one 
but countless such scholars whose hopes and trust are centered on 
Pakistan, and it is their greatest desire that side by side it marches 
on the straight path of Islam, Pakistan should progress by leaps and 
bounds in the material fields as well. That is why on the one hand 
they have been emphasizing on the Muslims that achievements of 
expertise of science and technology is an important component of 
our obligations, and if we fail to fulfill our obligations we shall be 
presented before Allah as an offender, and on the other hand they 
are praying day and night for the prosperity and integrity of 
Pakistan which is best known by Allah, the All-knowing, All- 

We are, however, presenting below the excerpts from the writings 
of some of those religious scholars who are being blamed of 
opposing science and technology. 

In Pakistan the most renowned of the religious scholars was 
Moulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani. His selfless sacrifices for the 
freedom of Pakistan can not be forgotten. In a conference at Dacca, 
in 1949, while explaining the policy of Pakistani scholars he 
declared in quite unequivocal terms: 

"No matter what treatment we meet from those in authority, we 
shall leave no stone unturned to make this new country safe and 
strong for the pleasure of Allah and supremacy of Islam and 
believers of Islam" (Presidential address Jamiat Ulem'a-e-Islam 
Conference, Dacca 10 February, 1949) 

Further in the same speech he said, 

"We should not lag behind and show any laziness in the 
procurement of these material means and equipments to the last bit 
of our ability and competency, so that we may lower the morale of 

Page 23 of 92 

our enemy and show our supremacy on them, because this is in 
accordance with the Qur'anic injunction." 

Continuing, he further said: 

"In my opinion the secret of all our success and prosperity lies in 
the four words namely, Patience and Perseverance, Fear of Allah 
and Purity, Unity of nation, and Numerical strength to the possible 
limits. In short, we must keep our relations with Allah in the right 
direction in our individual and collective life, so that we deserve 
His favor and assistance. And I pray that the entire Muslim nation 
should unite together and bring forth the Power that would subdue 
all evil forces". 

The Grand Mufti of Pakistan, Mufti Muhammad Shafi, President, 
Darul Ulum, Karachi, has written in his treatise 'Jihad' as under, 

"Indeed, the Patience, the fear of Allah and total belief in and 
submission to Allah is the real and unconquerable strength of 
Muslims. Along with it, however, it is also essential that equipment 
of war and ammunition proper to the time and place should be 
acquired and stored. The Prophet (SA) always arranged for war 
exercises, and issued instructions to collect and acquire all those 
weapons that were in vogue anywhere in those days. It has been 
reported by Ibn-e-Kathir in his book "Al- Hidayah wan Nihayah" 
under the caption of Battle of Hunayn that two of the Prophets' 
companions could not take part in Jihad because they were in 
Damascus learning the techniques of manufacturing war weapons 
called 'Dababa' and 'Dhabur' (The carriages that were used as 
Tanks in those days). Similarly, catapults were also manufactured 

"This incidence also proves that it is obligatory for the Muslims to 
make their countries self sufficient in war weapons and technology 
and should not depend on others. Otherwise the Prophet could have 
purchased those carriages and catapults rather than sending his men 
to learn the techniques to manufacture them by themselves. We are 
bound to think it seriously how much our country is in need of all 
the equipment and weapons of war used in modern warfare so that 
we may not be lagging behind. We must put all our energy and 
resources to fulfill the aim that we become self sufficient in the 
nearest possible future." ('Jihad' pp.53 to 56) 

Page 24 of 92 

In another of his books "Modern Weapons" the Grand Mufti has 

"In short the industrial products and inventions, be they new or old, 
if related to mankind's economic prosperity, are all benefactions of 
Allah that have been bestowed on human beings. Man should be 
wise enough to take full benefits from them and be grateful to 
Almighty Allah." ('Ala'te-Jadidah p. 15). 

And Moulana Zafar Ahmad Usmani, Sheikh-ul-Hadith, Darul- 
Ulum-al-Islamiya, Tando Allah Yar, writes in one of his recent 

"War weapons and technology against the enemy should be raised 
to the extent that the enemy is overawed with them. Our earlier 
Caliphs and Sultans religiously followed this rule. The companion 
Hadhrat Mu'awiyah (RA) had prepared a fleet of 500 warships 
during the time of Hadhrat Usman (RA), the third Caliph. He used 
to supervise personally the collection of all defense equipments and 
never depended on others as we do today. The Muslim nations 
should join together to build up factories for ammunition and other 
weapons, and a continued process of research and inventions must 
be carried out. All these efforts are in conformity with Qur'anic 
injunctions." (Monthly Al-Balagh, p44 J.A 1387 (AH). 

Moulana Muhammad Yusuf Binorri, Sheikh-ul-Hadith, Madrasah 
Arabiyah, New Town (Binnori Town), Karachi, writes: 

"There is no scarcity in the Islamic world, rather there is an 
abundance of natural resources, material reserves and wealth, but 
how great a tragedy it is that a major portion of their wealth is 
utilized by the enemies through deposits in foreign banks, or spent 
in extravagance, debauchery, undue luxuries, and immoralities. But 
defense stability, military training and ordinance factories are 
practically negligible, while the enemies of Islam are constructing 
airports, naval fleets, military cantonments and large ordinance 
factories. But the Islamic world is not only indulged in profane 
pursuits but has shown criminal negligence towards material 
progress." (Monthly B aiyyenat, Karachi, R.S. 1387 (AH), p.4) 

Page 25 of 92 

Moulana Abdul Haq, Sheikh-ul-Hadith of Darul-ulum Haqqania, 
Akora Khattak, has elaborated the same view in one of his 

"You have acquired only immorality and evil - doings from 
Europe. They manufacture one plane and innumerable rockets in a 
minute and collect billions of dollars to save the Jews, and we 
remain asleep in our luxuries. If we ignore our collective problems 
the result can not be other than destruction." (Monthly Al-Haq, 
July 1967, p. 17) 

Moulana Shamsul Haq Afghani has written in one of his recent 
articles "Taraqqi aur Islam" (Islam and Progress): 

"Our deprivation from progress and our present decline is the result 
of our neglect towards Islam, otherwise Islam and Progress are 
inseparable.... According to this verse it is obligatory on all 
Muslims that in all the modern equipments and instruments they 
should progress to the extent that they should be at least at par with 
Christian nations if not exceed them. The Islamic world must use 
all its resources for this purpose." (Monthly 'Al-Haq', Sept 1967 

Above are the utterances of some high ranking and renowned 
religious scholars. These have come to our view just abruptly 
without any special efforts to find them. Those who had been 
reading the views of these scholars know it fully well that not only 
the religious scholars never opposed Science and Technology but 
they had always been inducing the Muslims to attain them. Despite 
this reality before their eyes there is a group of people who are 
beating their drums high and loud that the religious scholars are 
opposed to progress and advancement, they are allergic to Science 
and Technology, they give no importance to the demands of time, 
and discard every new thing. 

The cleverest advocate of "Falsehood" was Goebbels, who spoke 
the Truth when he said that if "falsehood" is spread with full force 
the world starts taking it as the "truth". Our modernists have also 
been following Goebbels' adage so much so that even some of the 
very learned and balanced of mind people regard this slogan as true 
while it is just a false blame, cunningly produced by propaganda 
machines of modern time. 

Page 26 of 92 

If, however, these people consider music and dance, nudity and 
obscenity, profligacy and immodesty, co-education, free inter 
mixing of men and women, usury in banking, and birth control as 
demands of time and means of progress, then indeed the religious 
scholars have openly opposed them, and they should have done so; 
they still do it and will continue doing it. We may be informed 
what logic and reason has ever claimed these things to be the 
demands of time? They must bring some logical argument to prove 
what relation material progress has with music and dances? Which 
is that progress that would stop without nudity and obscenity? 
What are the genuine obstacles in the way of promoting interest- 
free banking? How does co-education and free mixing of men and 
women help in science and technology? 

The modernists may call music and dances, coeducation and mixed 
gatherings, etc. as the demands of time, but in view of the 
circumstances we sincerely believe that the greatest need and 
demand of the present time is that the Islamic world should totally 
eradicate these things with full might and power. This is because, 
the magnitude of the fatalities that has come to the forefront in the 
twentieth century was never witnessed before. The very Western 
intelligentsia itself is showing clear signs of extreme anxiety and 
restlessness on their premature but immoral and irrational social 
advancement. No literate person of the world can claim to be 
ignorant of this outcry that is echoing from the meeting chambers 
of Western thinkers as a result of social and moral ruin in their 
lives. The 'modernist' should, for God's sake, decide for himself as 
to what really are the demands of time? Should it be that the 
Islamic world should march on the footsteps of the West and fall 
into the same abyss of moral degradation? Or should the Islamic 
world take lesson from the dreadful end of the West and save itself 
from this dangerous path forever? 

The group of people who consider these curses of Western 
civilization as demands of time and means of progress call 
themselves as "Modernists" but it is strange that in the field of 
thoughts and deeds they are preaching the same outdated 
ideologies of the West which have not given anything but burnt 
scars all over the body. They know very well how rapidly the 
Western style of thinking is changing about their old views, and 
what the latest studies of philosophy and science are proving about 

Page 27 of 92 

these subjects? Take for example the problem of population. A 
very substantial number of modern economists are against limiting 
the family size and birth control. Having been impressed by their 
latest arguments such economists are constantly increasing in 
number, but our "Modernists" are still embracing Malthus' 
outdated theory that has been thrown away by the march of time 
some two centuries ago. I do wish to quote here the views of 
Philosopher-Poet, Iqbal, who said: 

"Power of the West is not due to flutes and guitars, nor due to 

dances of veil less girls, nor due to the spell of their magical 

beauty, nor to their naked legs, nor to their trimmed hair styles. 

Their supremacy is not due to secularism, nor is their progress due 

to Latin script. Their power is due to science and technology. It is 

this fuel that is burning in their lamps. Wisdom does not lie in how 

your clothes are tailored, and the turban is no obstruction for 

science and technology". 

The above is sufficient to show the nature of these accusations of 
our "Modernists" against the religious scholars of opposing the 
demands of time and Science and Technology? The question arises 
as to why the "Modernists" are so forcefully propagating this 
extremely unreasonable claim? As far as we can trace there is 
probably a psychological factor in action, if we rule out any 
specific motives behind it the fundamental error which misled 
these modernists is that they consider Islam analogous to 
Christianity and the Islamic world to the West. They had observed 
that at the time of revival of science and technology in the West the 
biggest obstacle was Christianity along with its scholars. As long 
as the supremacy of church prevailed in the West the whole region 
was filled with ignorance and illiteracy. The Christian scholars 
tried to suppress every such attempt that was made to create 
scientific awareness among the people. People like John Hiss and 

Page 28 of 92 

Jerome were burnt alive in the city of Constance. The renowned 
scientist Galileo had to suffer calamities because he wanted to open 
new avenues in the field of science. But gradually the awareness 
spread and several movements came out. These tortures could not 
stop them, and ultimately Martin Luther, John Calone and Zongli 
put up a struggle that defeated Papalism and these movements got 
their chance to flourish. Lately Russo, Horonic and Reman with 
other modernists made further changes and innovations in the 
religion and brought it in conformity to the scientific researches of 
that time. The situation now is that Luther, Calone, Ruso and 
Horonic etc. have been titled as Reformers by the religious minded 
people of the West. They are regarded as national heroes and 
people of the new generation, who have not yet become totally 
alien to religion, regard them with a sense of honor and dignity that 
by making fundamental changes in Christianity they freed the 
nation from the grip of Papalism which was the greatest obstacle in 
the way of their material progress. 

Now, the modernists of Islam want to make similar amendments by 
considering Islam equal to Christianity and scholars of Islam 
parallel to popes and regard themselves as Luthers and Rusos of 
their time. In this way they want to become the Reformers of the 
Muslim nation by opposing and defaming the religious scholars. 
They aspire that some Henry VIII will soon appear and he will 
grace them by accepting their ideology and then officially 
implementing it for ever. Thus the coming generations will regard 
them in such high esteem as is the case of hero-worship with 
Luther and Ruso etc. 

We may remark here that they are in great delusion and their dream 
is never going to come true. They are badly mistaken in 
considering Islam similar to Christianity and scholars of Islam to 
popes. The unnatural views of Christian religion which became 
common after the third century did not have adequate power to 
keep pace with 

time for all future days to come, and stand face to face with the 
latest scientific advancements. That was an era of dark ignorance 
and superstitions which could not stay in the light of knowledge. 
Hence science came as a great challenge and they were left with no 
other option than either to oppose science openly or by cutting and 
dipping their religion to bring it in conformity with the scientific 
knowledge. The popes initially adopted the first course and 
declared science as the forbidden tree. But Science was the real 

Page 29 of 92 

need of that time and they could not stop its progress merely by a 
hollow claim and baseless charges against it. The result was that all 
their efforts failed to stop scientific advancement. 

At this stage the modernists adopted the second course and started 
manipulating the religion and distorting its teachings so that people 
may not mock and laugh at it. This was indeed a service to 
Christianity, and if they had not done this favor Christianity would 
have been swept away by the torrent of Rationalism and no trace of 
it could be found today. The workmanship of Christian modernists 
helped the Christian religion to survive although its fundamental 
concepts were totally changed. At least its name and external 
structure still exists. It is this favor of the modernists to Christianity 
that made them heroes of their nation and due to this the major part 
of the Christian world holds them in high esteem. 

But the case of Islam is totally different. It is a natural religion and 
it has come to exist till the Last Day. By virtue of its old and real 
interpretations it has the capability of marching forward with the 
researches of every era. Hence science has never been a danger to 
it nor will it ever be. Rather, we have observed that the latest 
inventions and researches of science generally make its beliefs and 
teachings more transparent. Hence it has no need to oppose science 
and its progress nor to change its own concepts. That is why unlike 
the popes the religious scholars of Islam never opposed science, 
because they know the realities exposed by Islam will become 
more and more transparent with the advancement of science. Since 
the Muslim Ummah believes that Islam is the religion revealed by 
Allah it does not have to change at any time, and that is why this 
nation has always condemned and disregarded any attempts 
towards making any changes in its teachings. 

To sum up, Islam is neither a spiritless religion like Christianity to 
have any fear or danger from scientific and technological 
advancement, nor its religious scholars 

(Ulema) have ever opposed science and technology as the Popes 
had done, neither does it need any Martin Luther, Russo or Renan 
for its survival. That is why, in the history of this religion, all those 
who tried to amend, manipulate or modernize it, got nothing but 
reproach and condemnation. In the history of this religion, the 
advocates of modernism have not been called Luther and Kalone, 
but the modernists of our history are remembered by the names of 

Page 30 of 92 

Musailmah, Abdullah bin Saba, Abu Musa Mazdar, Hasan bin 
Sabbah, Qaramat, Abul Fazl, Faizi and Kamal Ata-Turk. Even their 
children would feel ashamed of their lineage with these names. The 
opponents of Luther and Kalone are mentioned with great 
disregard by the Christians. But the opponents of modernism in 
Islam, namely Abu Bakr Sidiq (RA), Ali bin Abi Talib (RA), 
Ahmad bin Hambal (RhA), Mahmoud Ghaznawi (RhA) and 
Mujaddid Alf Thani (RhA) are still living with their names, and as 
long as the human conscience is alive the names of these sacred 
personalities will continue to be taken with love and allegiance. It 
is a pity that our present day modernists have not been able to 
understand the great diversity between Islam and Christianity, and 
as a result of this grave misunderstanding they have been busy in 
abusing the scholars of Islam, calling them obscurantist, accusing 
them of ignorance for no reason. We earnestly request them with 
all the well-wishes and heart-felt sympathies that they revise their 
attitude with a cool mind and balanced thoughts, otherwise the 
course adopted by them is in no way beneficial for Muslims, for 
the country and the Ummah and even for themselves. 

I hope and pray that my humble submissions leave a useful 
impression on them. 

Page 31 of 92 



This article was originally addressed to "Institute of Islamic 
Research" which was headed by Dr. Fazlur Rahman at that time, 
but applies to all modernists of our time. 

Indeed numerous judicial problems have been created in our time, 
and in order to solve them it is essential that scholars of Islamic 
jurisprudence and those having insight in these matters make 
collective efforts through regular discussions, debates and research. 
There are many such problems facing the Muslim world which 
require that the scholars of Islam and experts of modem science 
hold joint discussions to solve them in the light of established 
principles of Islam. The importance and necessity of this splendid 
job is being felt in various circles of Islamic scholars and some 
efforts are also being made at some places but due to lack of 
resources these efforts have so far not materialized into an 
organized collective forum. 

The present government has formed an institute for this purpose 
after it came into power. Section 107 of our Constitution describes 
the purpose of such a body that through it research on various 
religious problems be carried out on the one hand, and on the other 
hand the society may be reformed on "True Islamic fundamental 
values". The president of Pakistan, Field Marshal Muhammad 
Ayub Khan, has written in his autobiography that he had 
constituted an Advisory Council of Islamic Ideology and an 
Islamic Research Institute to advise the Government on our 
legislative problems, after studying them in the light of religion. He 
stated that this would help the legislators in bringing our laws in 
harmony with the spirit of Islam. But for the practicability of these 
laws, "a thorough survey of the requirements of the society is 
needed." (Friends Not Masters, page 106). Nobody can deny the 
importance and commendability of purpose described here. In fact, 
this reflected the wishes of scholars of Islam and every one having 
an Islamic mind. Without such a move it is impossible to change 
and mould the worn out system of the country's judiciary into 
Islamic laws. 

Page 32 of 92 

But any institution, no matter how sincere be the intentions behind 
it and how useful be the purposes of its establishment, can not give 
beneficial results unless its system of operation is right and its 
authorities are competent to deal with its problems without bias 
and prejudice. They must have a reasonable working plan in their 
minds and the way to achieve them must be just and straight. 
Unless these conditions are fulfilled no institution can be expected 
to be successful. 

This is why the "Institute of Islamic Research" has not been able to 
justify its establishment so far. Several years have passed since this 
institution was formed but so far it has not only been unable to do 
some useful work but in fact an atmosphere of discord and 
dissension has been created in the country. So far it has created 
problems rather than solving them, evolved difficulties for our 
social structure rather than removing them, given air to the glowing 
fire rather than extinguishing it. That is why the institution which 
should have been the centre of wishes and ambitions of the nation, 
could not gain the confidence of the people. Living in the world of 
vain imaginations is living in a fools paradise. Try to penetrate the 
feelings of more than a hundred million population of Pakistan and 
your conscience will tell you that they do not consider this 
institution as their own. The so-called achievements of this 
Institute pinches in their hearts like thorny bushes, and their lack of 
confidence is so extreme that even a rightful statement from this 
institution is looked with doubt and suspicion. 
In these lines we would like to discuss the reasons which have 
turned an extremely useful institution into an extremely harmful 
and unsuccessful one, and due to which a very unhealthy 
atmosphere of disruption, disputes and disturbances has been 

This is not a matter of obstinacy or anybody's personal prejudice 
rather it concerns a problem on which depends the survival of 
Islamic thought and Islamic way of life, if it is not solved with 
solemnity and balanced thinking, this nation will never be able to 
achieve the goal that led to the creation of Pakistan. Hence the 
exigency of time demands that all concerned should think and 
ponder over this problem with a cool temperament disregarding 
sentimental pressures. 

In our view the main cause of failure of this institution is that the 
people in authority could not differentiate between "Research" and 

Page 33 of 92 

"Distortion". They have taken the two words as analogous and thus 
found superfluous solutions to the problems not conforming to the 
ideology of Islam at all. 

It was obligatory for the Islamic researchers of our time to acquire 
and explore the guidelines of Islam provided regarding the 
problems being faced by Mankind in the twentieth century. How 
can it be put into practice? How the practical difficulties in this 
way can be removed? It was their duty to have surveyed the 
Western civilization with a view of research and criticism rather 
than counterfeiting them. They should have discarded the things 
that clashed with the laws of Islam, and should have suggested 
alternate ways which conformed to Islamic laws and at the same 
time fulfilled the legitimate needs of time. 

But the line of action of researchers of the Institute of Islamic 
Research is quite in contradiction to this. On the one hand they pre- 
supposed that the thirteen hundred years old laws of Islam have 
now become worn out and outdated, and it is not possible to 
implement and comply with them unless some fundamental 
changes are made in them (They call these changes as "New 
interpretations"). And on the other hand it has rooted deep into 
their minds that ideological and practical expositions of Western 
civilization are all blessings and benedictions, and unless Muslims 
accept them in Toto their survival in the present time is impossible. 

The entire intellectual structure of Modernism has been constructed 
on the above two hypotheses. As a result, the style of their working 
had been that any ideology or style of working from the West is 
first taken as granted to be cent per cent right and there is no way 
out for us in the present time than to accept it and adopt it. Their 
'Research' is then wholly directed towards proving it to be in 
conformity with Islam, by reshaping and distorting Islamic 
teachings and even by changing the established commandments of 
Islam. They do not hesitate in denying the prophetic traditions, or 
write down a new dictionary to give new meanings to the verses of 
the Qur'an. 

This is the very style for which the word "Distortion" should be 
used in place of "Research". Our submission is that, if you believe 
that Islam is the natural religion, if you have faith that its principles 
and injunctions are not the product of any human brain but that of 

Page 34 of 92 

the All-knower Allah who is fully aware of all the needs of 
Mankind for all times to come, if you are confident that the Islam 
proclaimed by Muhammad (PBUH) contains satisfactory solutions 
to all the problems and difficulties that may arise till the Last Day, 
then you must admit that the solution to the problems of twentieth 
century also lies in the same principles which were brought by the 
Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) 1400 years ago. This is, 
however, subject to the condition that you sincerely try to get rid of 
the inferiority complex which has made the West as the standard of 
righteousness in your eyes. Once you get the courage to lift up the 
veil of deception of the West from your mind you will have the 
chance to understand the problems with full confidence. It is then 
that you will discover new ways of survival in the present time 
fulfilling all the needs and demands of time on the one hand and 
save you from the unholy ways of the West. If you follow this 
course you will be able to acquire the wealth of peace and 
tranquility that has never been imagined by the West. 

We may be excused if you find our tone unmannerly but if you 
have any claim to realism, be realistic in analyzing your approach. 
While seeking the solution to your problems you have the fear of 
being called conservative or superstitious or uncivilized by the 
West. This complex does not allow you to give a serious thought to 
the true Islamic virtues. You are always anxious to give Islamic 
sanction to all those things that have a label of liberalism on them. 
May be that this line of action brings you some good name in the 
Western circles, but this is never going to solve your problems nor 
will it give you the status of a living and free nation. It is not 

We may seem to exaggerate about your mode of action but an 
honest and realistic self-analysis will testify to the truth of our 

You have observed that the West has based its entire banking 
system on "Interest". This is the system which is regarded as one of 
the prominent virtues of modern civilization. So, you started 
investing all your energy to make the interest permissible in trading 
system. You never bothered to ask yourself if the interest was 
really inevitable for the Banking system and why cannot this be run 
on the Principles of 'Mudaribah provided by Islam and why the 
Islamic Principle of 'Mudaribah' cannot be adopted in Banking? At 

Page 35 of 92 

the cost of the opposition of the Muslim Ummah you have 
compound interests but you never cared to find out the principles 
of interest-free banking which assures us more equitable 
distribution of wealth. 

The "Insurance" is regarded as a symbol of civilization in the 
West. You accepted it as it was and tried to give it Islamic sanction 
by making fabricated interpretations in the Qur'an and Sunnah. But 
you never knew that there was an easier and fairer way of making 
some minor changes in the prevailing insurance system and thus 
bring them in conformity with the established principles of Islam, 
making it a more useful institution. 

The Western countries have recently launched great campaigns to 
preach "Family Planning". You also followed them in propagating 
it. For this purpose you consumed your energies to misinterpret the 
laws of Islam in favor of family planning. But you never thought 
how China is surviving with its 700,000,000 population? 
According to Chu-en-lai every new child brings a message of 
prosperity. In the hue and cry of the Western world you looked at 
one mouth of a newly born child and felt uneasy to think from 
where to feed it? But you did not see the two hands of the child to 
work. The small country like Israel realized the importance of 
population and has been using all the means of increasing its 
population. The Westerner had said that population rise is 
dangerous for developing countries. You accepted this "sincere 
advice" and imposed birth control as a law, but you failed to see 
how Vietnam had humbled the big power like America and why 
the Western countries are scared of China? Americans had declared 
that in the East they would give financial aid only to those 
countries who would adopt the birth control. You took it as a 
sympathetic gesture from them but you did not try to argue why 
Israel gets the lion's share in aid inspite of being against birth 

You heard that polygamy is considered to be a crime in Western 
countries. In order to free yourself from this blame you made the 
excuse that Islam had allowed it only in some emergency 
conditions and now it is no more permissible. For this purpose you 
left no stone unturned in pulling and dragging the meanings of the 
verses of Holy Qur'an. But did you ever try to investigate why the 
Westerners never feel the need of more than one wife? Thanks to 

Page 36 of 92 

Modern Civilization and the open practice of un-registered 
polygamy in every hotel, every night club and every park, there is 
no need of getting oneself involved in regular family life. The 
Westerners had publicized that polygamists are cruel to their 
wives. You started pleading that the fundamental conception of 
Islam is to stop such a tyranny and hence polygamy is forbidden in 
Islam. But you shut your eyes from the naked reality that there are 
innumerable people who are extremely cruel to their single wife. In 
fact the number of such people is greater. Hence this argument 
requires that single marriage also should be banned. 

You observed that the Westerners consider Hijab (woman's veil) as 
a vice, so you started fabricating the established injunctions of 
Islam. But you never cared to think that by unveiling their women 
what disaster the West has brought, to their homes? Did you ever 
care to know, what is the cause of unabated grief of the serious 
thinkers of the West on this issue? 

You came to know that co-education is practiced in Western 
countries. You started advocating for it as an insignia of 
civilization, but never bothered to think of the reasons behind the 
dreadful scene of American culture presented by Kinsey Reports 
before the world? Did you ever think who is responsible for the 
ever increasing unlawful sexual relations in the young generation? 
What is the cause of the ever decreasing standard of education? 

You have read that many of the Westerners deny miracles and hold 
them as superstition. Very obediently you also followed the 
example and tried to reject the miracles described by the Qur'an in 
detail. As a result of this you converted the entire Qur'an into a 
poetic and metaphorical book. But you never thought that those 
who had initially denied the miracles had also called the existence 
of God as the worst form of superstition. They had even mocked at 
Prophethood and Divine Revelations. 

Further, you never paid any attention to the fact how rapidly the 
most recent researches of scientific knowledge are making miracles 
more acceptable to human intellect. 

Keeping all these facts in view, for God's sake, please tell us if 
there is any exaggeration in our assessment that you pay no heed to 
finding an Islamic and intellectual solution to these problems. On 

Page 37 of 92 

the contrary you are always looking for the Western ideologies. 
Whatever you receive from them as permissible you spend all your 
energy to prove it in conformity with Islam, with no concern to 
what damage you are causing to the Qur'an and Sunnah. When you 
notice any signs of dislike for something on the faces of 
Westerners you exhaust all your powers to declare it unlawful and 
prohibited in Islam even at the cost of giving away explicit 
injunctions of the Qur'an and Sunnah. 

Further, it is noteworthy that so far you have taken into 
consideration only those problems which have been raised by the 
Westerners. You paid no heed to the multitude of genuine 
problems of our own society, and no attempt was made to solve 
these problems. A clear example of this is: You promptly noticed 
the injustice which the polygamist do to their wives even though 
such incidences are rare in our society, while the brutalities done 
by the monogamists are so common that hardly any family is 
devoid of it. You will find innumerable women who do not have 
co-wives yet they are leading a miserable life due to inequity of 
their husbands. The plight of such women does not stir your heart; 
you feel no sympathy for their helplessness and make no attempt to 
free them from the cruel grip of their cruel husbands? 

Your pen did not move for a single word against the evil customs 
of our society with reference to marriages, dowry, Mehr, living 
allowances, housing and inter family relations. You made no move 
against the defective, time- consuming and out-dated judiciary 
system, which has deprived the society of justice. In matrimonial 
matters you could see only one thing, that is, polygamy which is 
practiced hardly by 10% of people, and you consumed all your 
efforts in proving it as unlawful The reason of your serious concern 
against polygamy is that it was initiated from the West and hence it 
sounded most important to you, while other problems being local, 
could not achieve your serious consideration. 

Moreover, the problems that came to your attention, you tried to 
solve them by a strange method. Inspite of investigating into the 
real causes of the problems you just took the easy way of finding 
temporary and easygoing solutions. 

Due to ignorance from the teachings of Islam the common people 
have developed a practice of throwing three divorces to their wives 

Page 38 of 92 

on trivial matters. This practice is absolutely wrong and 
impermissible which is usually the cause of social disorder. It was 
essential that a wide publicity was made to educate people on 
gravity of this sin and its evil consequences. It was further 
necessary to decide if any legal punishment for such a sin can be 
imposed or not? Surprisingly, you brought out the solution to this 
problem that makes a mockery of the entire judicial system of 
Islam. Your solution was that "three" should be counted as one, 
thus giving free license to men to give as many divorces as they 
could without being acknowledged as three. Is it not like a person 
being beaten by another, when the oppressed man calls you for 
help you tell him "Keep taking the punishment, we shall never 
accept that you had been beaten". Is this the way of freeing the 
oppressed from oppression? 

You observed that sometimes an orphan grandson is left 
unprotected after the death of his paternal grandfather. Your 
solution to the problem is to cut a portion of legacy of his paternal 
uncles and give it to him. But you failed to conceive that if it be set 
into practice how would you solve the problem of orphan 
nephews? Why should they be deprived of a share in the heritage 
of their uncles? You also ignored the basic moral obligation that 
you cannot remove the distress of one person in the Robin Hood 
fashion. For removing the distress of such helpless persons Islamic 
Law provides adequate relief. These methods are explained in 
"Kitab-un-Nafqat", "Kitab-ul-Wasiyyah" and "Kitab-uz-Zakah". If 
the rules laid down in them are implemented properly they would 
be of great help to the distressed. 

The above observations if given due consideration, with no 
prejudices in mind, provide one with the conclusion that the 
Institute of Islamic Research and its co-workers are basically 
wrong in their very mode of thinking. As a result of it they have 
not only been unable to do any service to the country and the 
nation but in fact created disruption, uneasiness, confusion and 
anxiety throughout the country. How we wish that the authorities 
of this extremely important institute give serious, sincere and 
selfless thought as to how harmful and dangerous for national unity 
is the way adopted by them? 

Page 39 of 92 

We have not made these submissions for supporting any group, but 
it is a sincere and devoted effort to incite them on giving a serious 
and sincere consideration to our deliberations. 

Page 40 of 92 



In the previous article we had exposed one aspect of the 
modernistic school of thought that they have made the Western 
way of thinking and living a criterion of right and wrong. In this 
article we are making some further submissions about the way of 
thinking and the method of argumentation of the modernists which 
are of fundamental importance to the subject under discussion. We 
intend to point out the reasons why all the efforts of our modern 
researchers have led them to the path of distortion in the name of 

Even a man with ordinary common sense knows that "Research" 
means "Search for Reality" and a researcher holds the position of a 
judge. It is his obligation that without forming any preconceived 
ideas and pre-drawn conclusions he should examine all the relevant 
matters thoroughly and impartially, consider all possible aspects of 
the problem with utmost honesty and add the weight of his 
judgment to the right side of the argument. On the contrary, if any 
one seeks and searches the arguments to support a preconceived 
idea or judgment he is certainly not the seeker of truth, nor do his 
efforts in this direction deserve to be called 'research work'. 

The duty of a research worker is not to collect arguments for a 
predetermined idea but to determine an idea in the light of 
arguments. He does not drag the arguments towards his judgment 
but the arguments drive him towards a judgment. But the process 
of working of our modernists is quite opposite. They believe that 
arguments are to serve a decision rather than the decision being 
dependent on arguments. This is what they think is the correct 
method of research and this what they teach as a methodology of 
research. They commonly make suggestions in their oral and 
written statements that: 

"We want to interpret the Qur'an and the Sunnah in a manner that 
it conforms to the needs of our time". 

It is a clear admission to the fact that they want to bring the Qur'an 
and Sunnah to reconcile with their decisions and not make their 

Page 41 of 92 

decisions to correspond with the Qur'an and the Sunnah. That is 
they will first decide as to what are the needs of time and then to 
try and find these arguments they will make such interpretations of 
the Qur'anic verses and prophetic traditions as to conform to their 
predetermined needs of the Time. This is what is termed as the 
"distortion of meaning". This way of argumentation can never be 
supported by any sensible person of the world. If the process of 
research is allowed to move in reverse direction then there will be 
no way left to protect the integrity of the truth. This is because in 
this way every illogical claim can be supported by argument. 
Nothing in the world would then be devoid of argument, and as 
they say: "Everything can be proved by everything". Once it is 
decided that a certain thing is to be proved through the Qur'an and 
Sunnah, and for this purpose you have decided to give new 
interpretation to the Qur'an and Sunnah, it would obviously mean 
that anything found supporting this idea would be presented as an 
argument no matter how weak and baseless it be and even the 
strongest argument against it would be thrown away being 
incompatible with present day life. 

You probably know that the Christian missionaries, while 
preaching their religion in the Muslim world, always prove their 
beliefs through the Qur'an and Traditions before common 
Muslims. For example, they say that the Qur'an has called Jesus, as 
"Kalimatullah" (The word of Allah) which implies that he was 
Allah's attribute of "Kal'am" (Speech) and the Bible of John also 
says the same. Also, the Qur'an said that Jesus was "R'uhullah" 
(The spirit of God) which implies that his relation with God was 
the same as that of Soul with body, and the same is said by Paul. 
They further say that the Qur'an said: "We supported Jesus with 
the holy spirit" and the same has been mentioned in the Bible that 
the Holy Ghost was sent to Jesus in the form of a pigeon. 

In this way they prove their concept of Trinity, and the tragedy is 
that they prove it through the Qur'an by virtue of its "new 
interpretation". As for the verses of the Qur'an which explicitly 
condemn the concept of Trinity, their "new interpretation" is that 
these verses condemn Trinity in the literal and real sense of the 
word, and even the Christians accept that there is only one God, 
and these three are only the components of one and not separate 
gods. Also according to their "new Interpretation" of Qur'an and 
its proclamation "Those who say Jesus son of Mary is god are 
Kafirs (unbelievers)" in fact meant to contradict the sect of 

Page 42 of 92 

monophacy. Where Qur'an has warned the Christians against the 
torment of Hell their "new Interpretation" is that this does not refer 
to Catholics but is meant for monophasics. The Qur'an says that 
Jesus was not crucified. The "new Interpretation is that, Christians 
in general also believe that the third person of Trinity was not 
crucified and the Qur'an does not contradict the crucifixion of his 

It can be seen how the magic of "new Interpretation" proved all 
Christians' beliefs to be in conformity with Islam. The question 
arises "What is the difference between your new Interpretation and 
that of the Christians?" If you have a right to make "new 
Interpretation" of the Quran and Sunnah in order to amend the 
established laws of Islam why the Christians should not have the 
same right? Under what rule or regulation can you reject the 
Christians' "new Interpretation"? 

One may argue that our comparison of "new Interpretation" of 
modernists with the "new Interpretation" of Christians is 
exaggerated, but that is not true. The readers may go through their 
articles on the subject and the truth of our statement will become 
quite apparent. 

We come across numerous interesting "new Interpretations" in the 
book named "Islam" written by the Director of Islamic Research, 
Dr. Fazlur Rehman. According to him only three daily Salah were 
originally made obligatory, and two more were added in the last 
years of the Prophet's life. Hence their number has the possibility 
of accepting changes. 

"Anyhow, the fact that basically there were three daily Salah is 
also supported by the incidence that there is one narration 
according to which Prophet (PBUH) has converted the four Salah 
into two". Anyway it happened in the post-prophetic era that the 
number of Salah without any alternative choice, was strictly fixed 
as five. In this way the fact that the number was basically three got 
swept away in the flood of traditions reported in support of the 
number of five". (Monthly "Fikr-o-Nazar, vol: 5, p. 259) 

This is the "new Interpretation". According to this, on one side "the 
flood of authentic prophetic traditions" which described the 
number of Salah as five from the very beginning of Islam is false 

Page 43 of 92 

and self-invented; on the other side the single narration describing 
the incidence of "combining the two Salah" has been considered by 
them as most reliable. Then again the term "combining two Salah" 
has been taken to mean that the Prophet had converted four into 
two. This is the most interesting example of the expertise in the 
"new Interpretation". If you have read this narration you will 
definitely enjoy the fallacies of thought.' This is the way of 
argument about which somebody has said," You can prove 
everything by everything." 

This is just one example that we have presented. If you go through 
the exegeses of these modernists you will come across many 
"master pieces" of their "new Interpretations"; Wahy (Divine 
revelations) is interpreted as the Prophet's own words; Angels 
mean water, electricity etc.; Iblis (Satan) as the fantasy; Jinns as the 
savage tribes; mankind as the civilized people; Death is 
unconsciousness, disgrace or disbelief; life means honor and 
dignity, state of consciousness or embracing Islam etc. 
If you keep the above exegetic points in view you will know that 
we have not exaggerated at all. Anyway, this was just a 
parenthesis. We wanted to impress that if we adopt the style of 
making arguments dependent on preconceived thoughts even 
Christianity can be proved from the Qur'an itself, and so can be 
Judaism, Socialism and Capitalism. Adopting the same style Dr. 
Pervaiz has proved Darwin's theory of evolution in his book "Iblis 
aur 'Adam" from the Qur'an. Also he has derived an economic 
system of socialist style from the Qur'anic phrase (Establish your 
prayers of worship). It is the same style of interpretations by which 
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadyani had pleaded that by Damishk 
(Damascus) the Prophet had meant Qadiy'an, the Mirza's 

Thus we see that the system of modernists is that they first fix 
some ideas themselves, label them as the exigencies of time and 
then impose the Qur'an and Hadith through their "new 
Interpretation" on them. This is the very first brick the angulations 
of which has resulted in the crookedness of the entire structure of 
their views and thoughts, and this is the fundamental reason why 
their thoughts have entered the limits of 'distortion' overthrowing 
all principles, rules and regulations of research and knowledge. 

Page 44 of 92 

There are some rules and regulations for research in every art and 
science. You cannot reach the correct conclusion unless you follow 
them. In the present jurisprudence also "Interpretation of statutes" 
is a compulsory subject. It has definite rules and regulations and 
unless they are given due consideration no interpretation by any 
legal expert can be acceptable. 

In the same manner, rather more reasonable and well organized, 
are the detailed rules and regulations for "Interpretation of Qur'an 
and Sunnah and Islamic law" that have been compiled after 
thorough research, devoted attention and minute observations. 
Hundreds of books are available on the subject and each rule has 
been thoroughly screened. Unless the Qur'an and Hadith are 
interpreted within the framework of these rules and regulations no 
reasonable person can accept them, exactly as such explanations of 
present commentators cannot be accepted that do not conform to 
the principles of "Interpretation of statutes". 

But our modernists do not bind themselves to any such rules in 
their interpretations and commentaries due to their stamped way of 
thinking. Thus they frequently defy the established rules of 
interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah. For example, the 
established rule of Islamic Jurisprudence is that proverbial or 
allegoric meaning of any word or phrase of the Qur'an or Hadith 
would be adopted only when literal meaning is either impossible or 
have become obsolete in common use. This is perfectly a 
reasonable rule which can not be challenged through any 
intellectual argument, without it no definite conclusion can ever be 
derived from anything said by anybody. But this rule is profusely 
ignored by the modernists in their writings. Wherever they find a 
word in the Qur'an and Hadith, clashing with their concepts, they 
unhesitatingly give it an allegoric and sometimes purely 
imaginative interpretation. "Son" has been interpreted as 
"grandson"; staff turned into "argument"; death as a state of "coma 
or disgrace", "Satan" as "fantasy or illusion "so much so that 
"Allah and Messenger" have been termed as "centre of the 
Ummah". These are just a few examples. If these absurdities are all 
compiled together a voluminous book can be prepared. 

It can be said by the modernists that they do not agree with the 
rules and regulations fixed by the Islamic jurists and that is why 
they do not follow them. In that case they should have pointed out 

Page 45 of 92 

those rules and given some alternate principles better than the rules 
of the jurists. Then they should have used their formulated rules in 
their writings. 

But we find that their interpretations are not supported by any 
principle at all. At one occasion they break a rule and oppose it, but 
at another occasion they derive their argument for their new 
interpretation. They reject any tradition that appears to contradict 
their views, no matter how authentic a chain of reporters it has, but 
where a tradition appears to support their views, they ignore the 
clear verses of the Holy Qur'an on the basis of a tradition which is 
weak and without support of authentic narrators. A recent example 
is the statement of Dr. Fazlur Rehman in which he has said that the 
meat of an animal is lawful and permissible to eat even if it is 
slaughtered without the name of Allah pronounced on it, while the 
explicit injunction of Qur'an is this: 

(And eat not that (flesh) over which Allah's name has not been 


But since this was against the views of Dr. Fazlur Rehman, he 
based his arguments on a narration of Hadhrat Aishah and on a 
saying of Imam Shafi which is perhaps the weakest argument of all 
his juristic inferences (as has been admitted by the scholars of 
Shafi school of thought), while his own view about the application 
of a tradition is as follows: 

"If a tradition tells anything that is not in conformity with the 
apparent Qur'anic injunction I would attribute it to the specific 
historical era rather than to the Prophet himself". (Monthly "Fikr- 
o-Nazar, p. 5 15, vol.2) 

Apart from the fact that his inference from Hadhrat Aishah' s 
narration is highly misleading, Dr. Fazlur Rehman should not seek 
argument from this according to his own principle cited above. On 
what ground has he attributed this tradition to the Holy Prophet 

A far as Imam Shafi is concerned, the Doctor has commented 
about him as under: 

Page 46 of 92 

"The enlightened views and quick understanding of Imam Sh'afi 
did create a mechanic system which undoubtedly led to 
stabilization of social and religious structure of our mediaeval era, 
but due to it we have been deprived of modern thinking and 
creative intellect. (Monthly "Fikr-o-Nazar", p. 30, vol.1) 

If Imam Sh'afi had committed such a fundamental error how can 
you quote him as authority on the validity of a religious precept? 
Does it not become apparent from the above examples that Dr. 
Fazlur Rehman and his coworkers have no set criterion for 
res'earch in their mind. Not only that they have not taken into 
consideration any of the established rules of Jurisprudence, they do 
not even follow the rules framed by themselves? 

There can be no other reason for this betrayal of their own 
principles that first they form their own views and then seek 
arguments to support them. Obviously this method cannot go along 
with rules and regulations, because with every new idea they have 
to frame new regulations. If they are requested in the name of God 
to let alone the "knowledge: and research" and refrain from making 
the Quran and Sunnah a plaything as was done by the Jews and. 
Christians in case of Torah and Injil, such persons are instantly 
labeled as "Obscurantists' and "Ignorant of the exigencies of time". 
Their judgment about them is that they are blind, to the new 
environment and have no knowledge of the modern demands. 
'(Monthly "Fikr-o-' Nazar", p.731, vol.2) 

We are conscious that in response to our sincere submissions, we 
shall also be rewarded with such titles but we are writing and will 
continue to write the truth hoping that there may be a heart in 
search of truth that may accept it. Maybe our suggestions can 
awaken a sleeping conscience. 

Page 47 of 92 



Who should be competent to interpret and explain the Quran and 
Sunnah (Prophetic traditions) and to deduce various injunctions for 
problems arising in new circumstances? What are the conditions 
and requirements necessary for this job? We find the answers to 
these questions in an authentic Tradition reported by Hadhrat Ali in 
which he said: 

I said, "O messenger of Allah! If we are confronted with a problem 
which has not been described in the Qur'an and Prophetic 
traditions, with no injunctions in favor or against it, what am I to 
do in such a situation?" He said: "Take advice of the jurists and 
faithful worshippers and do not employ your individual opinion". 

The Holy Prophet (PBUH) has explicitly stated in this narration 
that two conditions must be fulfilled by a person who wants to 
deduce laws and injunctions from the Qur'an and Prophetic 
traditions. Firstly; he must be a jurist and secondly, he must be a 
devotee to worship. The importance of the first condition is 
obvious because objectives of the Qur'an and traditions can be well 
conceived only by those who possess vast and deep knowledge, 
who are fully aware of the rules laid down by the earlier jurists and 
who have spent their lives in understanding the intentions of divine 
laws. Similarly, the Prophet has made it a condition for him to be a 
devotee and faithful, that is, he must have devoted himself to the 
practices of these laws. Anyone who can not make distinction 
between permissible and forbidden in practical life and whose 
every day practices are in contrast of these laws can not 
comprehend the intentions of Islam. Deduction of the laws is, in 
fact, the "Search for the Truth", and the Qur'an states that Allah 
bestows the faculty of cognizance of the truth to the one who 
confides in it in his practical life. It is said: 

(If you fear Allah He will give you the power of discrimination 
between truth and falsehood). (8:29) 

Page 48 of 92 

This verse has clearly stated that "Fear of Allah" is the primary 
condition for a sense of discrimination between right and wrong. It 
is quite obvious from the above verse of the Qur'an and the 
Prophetic tradition that a religious and juristic solution can best be 
found by a person who is a "jurist" and a "devotee" (or "Muttaqi", 
that is, the one who abstains from evil for fear of Allah). 

Lately Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Grand Mufti of Pakistan and 
President, Darul-Ulum, Karachi had summarized the same thing in 
the following words: 

"The method of solving the problems not mentioned in the Book 
and the traditions is the joint consultation of jurists and devoted 
scholars of Islam. Imposing the personal and individual opinion on 
the Muslims is forbidden." 

But for reasons unknown our modernists are allergic to this way of 
thinking. The traditional knowledge of the Qur'an and the Sunnah 
is not considered by them as an essential requirement for 
interpretation of and deductions from the Qur'an and the Sunnah, 
nor do they 'think it necessary that such a person should 
necessarily' be fearful of Allah and a devoted worshipper. For 
some time they have been making loud suggestion to this effect. 

"There should be no monopoly of religious scholars" on the 
interpretation of Quran and the Sunnah. No papacy should be 
allowed in Islam. No particular group, therefore, can be given the 
right of legislations. "The interpretation of the Qur'an and the 
Tradition is the right of all Muslims and not of the religious 
scholars alone" — "Religious scholars cannot be given the power 
of veto in the affairs of Islam", etc., etc. 

These are the suggestions that are expressed in almost all the 
writings of the modernists. As far as the instructions of the Quran 
and the Traditions are concerned we have already submitted that 
the greatest emphasis has been laid down on the fundamental 
requirement of knowledge and devotion for interpreting the 
religion; but it seems proper here to discuss real frets, that are the 
source of these misunderstandings. 

Page 49 of 92 

Their first suggestion is: "There is no Brahmanism or Papacy in 
Islam; hence the religious scholars cannot be given the exclusive 
rights of legislations". 

Either they are totally ignorant of the real meaning of papacy and 
theocracy and the ills in them, or they are deliberately deceiving 
the simple people of the Ummah. Anyone having the slightest 
sense of justice and the truth can understand that "knowledge" and 
"fearfulness of Allah" (Taqwa) is not limited to any race, color, 
caste or creed which one cannot achieve through his efforts and 
resources. It is the name of 'Eligibility and Qualification" of a 
specific objective which can be achieved by everyone at any time. 
If setting some qualifications for certain responsibilities is papacy, 
no section of life can be said to be devoid of it. The educational 
standard and moral character needed for the presidentship and 
ministership of a country would also be termed as "papacy". The 
condition of being an expert on legal affairs for a judge would also 
be another form of "papacy". The attainment of a law degree for 
legal advisor or advocate should also be called papacy. The 
condition of having relevant academic degrees for teaching in a 
university, college or school should be removed. The limit of age, 
intellect and normal character fixed for qualifying as a candidate in 
elections, should all be cancelled as they are different forms of 
"papacy". But it is not so. Then how can the condition of 
"Knowledge" and "Taqwa", for interpreting the Qur'an and the 
Tradition, be termed as papacy? 

Anyone having a little knowledge of the term "Papacy" and 
"Brahmanism" cannot overlook the differences between the 
religious scholars of Islam and the Popes and Brahmans. 

(l)"Pope" and "Brahmans" are practically the titles of a 
specified class of color, caste and creed. Anyone outside 
these jurisdictions cannot enter into their fold despite all 
eligibilities and efforts. That is why we find dacoits and 
robbers becoming "Popes" in the history of the Christian 
church. Contrary to this, Religious scholar of Islam (Ulema) 
is an attribute for which there is no restriction of caste and 
creed. In the fourteen hundred years of the history of Islam 
we find religious scholars in every color or creed, even the 
slaves have emerged as great scholars of Islamic learning 
and accepted as leaders of the Ummah. The cause of their 

Page 50 of 92 

dignified status had always remained their "Knowledge" and 
"Taqwa" rather than their parental background. 

(2) The religion of which the Pope is claimed to be a spokesman 
is a religion which does not provide with guidance for the 
most important aspects of life. That is why the word of Pope 
has become the word of God, and no one else can defy this. 
Thus he is no more an interpreter of law but a free and 
independent law-maker. Contrary to this, the injunctions of 
the Book (Qur'an) and the Sunnah (Prophetic traditions) are 
universal and the rules and regulations for their 
interpretation are prescribed and preserved in their original 
form. Any scholar saying anything against these rules and 
regulations will be rejected by other scholars on the ground 
of these principles. A number of such scholars are always 
present to check such misinterpretations. 

(3) The process of law-making and interpretation of religion in 
papacy ultimately ends on one man. He alone been regarded 
as the "Shepherd of the sheep of Messiah" and the Deputy of 
the founder of the church. Contrary to this, "Religious 
scholar" of Islam is not the name of any person who is the 
head of an organization, but anyone who has attained 
religious knowledge on true lines is a Religious scholar and 
an heir to the Holy Prophet. Hence no individual scholar has 
right to impose his personal views and whims on the entire 
Muslim Ummah. 

In the presence of such an obvious difference between the roles of 
the Pope and of the Islamic scholars any one applying the .term 
Papacy to the services of the Ulema simply exhibits his loss of 
knowledge and common intellect. 

The second demand of the modernists, is that "there can be no 
monopoly of the Ulema on the Book and Traditions. Therefore, the 
right of their interpretation cannot be reserved for religious 
scholars alone". 

Those under the charm of this propaganda are tirelessly repeating 
this slogan and do not stop for a while to think that thus they are 
making themselves similar to a person who had never seen a 
medical college but raises the objection as to why the treatment of 
diseases has been served for qualified doctors only or like a fool 
who criticizes by saying why the experts in law and jurisprudence - 

Page 51 of 92 

alone have the right of the interpretation of law and why not others 
are allowed to do so? 

No sensible or conscientious person can ever think on these lines. 
However, if one has such an imbecile approach he should know 
that, any one has the right to perform all these duties, but to gain 
proficiency and eligibility for this you will have to spend years and 
years of hard work and labor, seeking the guidance from experts 
for practical experience, obtain degrees and diplomas and other 
related experience, then, of course, you will be allowed to make 

The most sensitive and delicate work of interpreting the Qur'an 
and the Sunnah is said to require the same process how can it be 
termed as a monopoly. Does it not require any one to get educated 
for it? Why the Qur'an and the Sunnah alone are considered to be 
as pitiable as to be treated by any individual at his own will? How 
one can be given the right to interpret the Qur'an and the Sunnah 
while he has not spent even a few months in acquiring the relevant 

They express their anger against the religious scholars all day long 
as to why they alone should deserve the right to interpret the 
Qur'an and the Sunnah? But they never reflect on the amount of 
pain and labor they have undergone to acquire this right? How in 
the two hundred years of British rule in India they had remained 
the target of the British atrocities and aggression? With all the 
doors of livelihood closed on them by the British rule they 
preferred to live on meager resources and devoted themselves to 
acquire this knowledge against all odds. They are still doing it 
despite the harassment from these modernists. How they their eyes 
glowed in front of the dim light of oil lamps of clay? And how they 
attempted to shape their lives in the mould of religion? If, after all 
that, the Holy Prophet (PBUH) gives them the right to interpret the 
Qur'an and his Sunnah, and the Muslims place their trust in them 
why is this resented by them? 

The eagerness of modernists for interpreting the Book and the 
Traditions is certainly commendable; but for this they should also 
undergo the physical and mental strain needed for it. They, too, 
should spend some part of their life in trodding the roads to 
knowledge of the Qur'an and learn the manners of living on that 

Page 52 of 92 

ground. If after that any one refuses to recognize them as 
interpreter of the Qur'an and the Traditions, then their complaint 
against the scholars would be justified. 

Under the present circumstances their attitude is like what the poet 

Those who hold their life dear to them 
Should not think of going to seek his beloved, 

Your present state of mind has been well depicted by the poet of 
the East, Allama Iqbal, in this poem: 

The knowledge of others you gained is a mere collection as if you 

have glowed your face with foreign cosmetics 

You have given up your dignity so much that I cannot recognize 

you as yourself.' 

Your mind is chained by the thoughts of others and the succession 

of breaths in your throat has a foreign source. 

The tongue is yours but the speech is borrowed from others and so 

are your wishes in your mind. 

The canaries wish to sing their own songs; the cypresses wish to be 

clad with their own foliage. 

You borrow the wine from others in your goblet. 

Even the cup you hold is not yours. 

The Prophet is grieved, and the Creator asks Am I not there?" But 

for you! Alas! Alas! 

Under these circumstances how can the Muslim Ummah entrust 
you with the responsibility of interpreting the Qur'an and Sunnah, 
who, with all their shortcomings, have saved their ideological 
entity as Muslims. 

As for the claim that Dr. Fazlur Rehman has published in the 
monthly "Fikr-o-Nazar" in these words: 

"In Islam the Muslim Ummah as a whole had been doing 
legislative work and it should still have the right to do so." 

I wish they had further clarified what he meant by it. Does it mean 
that every individual of the Ummah should be allowed to become a 
legislator. Every illiterate and uncivilized person should be 

Page 53 of 92 

entrusted with legislation. Or, does it mean that the Ummah as a 
whole enjoys the right to select some deserving, reliable and 
knowledgeable person from among them to be entrusted with this 
sacred job? In that case it will be a work of these selected people. 

Obviously even the very staunch believer in democracy does not 
take the term democracy to mean that every single individual can 
interfere with each and every affair of the state. In fact, they hold 
that every matter and problem is to be entrusted to the experts of 
that field and those who lack knowledge in that trade have to place 
their trust on these experts, and it is not termed as an infringement 
of the rights of democracy. 

After this analysis of the rights of people one can easily conclude 
who, out of one hundred and twenty million people of Pakistan, are 
worthy of trust in the matter of interpretation and exegesis of the 
Qur'an and the Traditions? 

When any one of them really wants to understand the Qur'anic 
injunction or prophetic tradition would he seek the help of the 
Institute of Islamic Research or any other modernist institution or 
to those "Obscurantist" scholars whom the modernists blame to 
have robbed the people of their democratic right? If the multitude 
of Muslims turn to these scholars without any compulsion, pressure 
or legal restrictions, place their trust on them and their conscience 
get satisfied with it where does the democratic right of people get 
hurt. Who have injured the beliefs of the Muslim Ummah with 
their interpolation, the Ulema or these modernists is known to all. 

Their last and biggest objection is on the condition of "Taqwa" 
(Fear of Allah, Piety, and Abstinence from evil- doings). 
According to them "Taqwa" like "knowledge" is not essential for 
interpreting the Qur'an. We do not understand what apprehension 
they have against it. According to them the complication in this 
regard is: 

"The condition of "Taqwa" is a condition that, every scholar can 
reject the judgement of another scholar, because everyone has his 
own standard for Taqwa". (Fikr-o-Nazar Nov. 67, p. 326) 

We may be allowed to say that ignore for a while your individual 
apprehension and there will be no complication in this matter. The 

Page 54 of 92 

same 'Multitude' (Jamhur) whom they want to give the status of 
legislators is equally entitled to decide which of the scholar fulfils 
this condition of taqwa? Collectively the conscience of multitude 
of Muslims is never wrong. Their opinion is the will of Allah. Why 
should there be any hesitation in entrusting the job of interpretation 
of the Qur'an and traditions to a person whose Taqwa is accepted 
by the multitude? 

It should be thoroughly understood that 'Taqwa' is not an 
ambiguous and unsettled term which can be given any meaning by 
anyone according to his individual liking. In Islam "Taqwa" is a 
legal Phrase and countless religious injunctions depend on it. 
Whenever it is used in a legal sense it would mean "practising the 
permissibles, abstaining from major sins and not insisting on minor 
sins." In the phraseology of the Qur'an it is the opposite of "Fujur" 
(Apparent Sins, Immorality). The Qur'an says: 

"Then inspired it (with conscience of) its wickedness and its piety." 

Hence anyone abstaining from "Fujur" is a man of Taqwa, and 
therefore the people shall have no difficulty in deciding about the 
piety and devotion (Taqwa) of a person. With this in view, one can 
easily conceive that there can be no complexity or difficulty arising 
from imposing the condition of knowledge and Taqwa for 
interpretation, explication or exegesis of the Qur'an and Prophetic 

In the end we would again like to humbly request the modernists 
that the use of Street slogans and propaganda weapons would 
neither render any service to the country or the nation nor can any 
problems be solved with them, nor would it leave any pleasant 
effect on any serious mind. In the hue and cry of their slogans at 
the most they can suppress the voice of truth for a short while. But 
that can only affect the ears, but not the hearts. A stage does come 
when the cries become hoarse and their throats get dry. It is then 
that the dignified voice of truth overcomes with full force, directly 
affects the hearts and stays permanently there. 

Page 55 of 92 



"Is the present day research about the moon, the sun and the 
planets in accordance with the Qur'an? There are some people who 
claim that there is no inconformity between science and the Qur'an 
and the Traditions, hence everything the science presents is correct, 
while others say that the views of science clash with the Qur'an. 
Kindly give your comprehensive view and opinion about it" 
(Question by Abdul Hai, Faridpur, East Pakistan now Bangladesh) 

Answer: An elaborate answer of this question requires a 
comprehensive article. However, I am presenting certain things by 
way of principles hoping that they will be helpful to remove your 
doubt in this matter. 

1. First of all it must be understood that the purpose of science 
is to explore the fundamental forces which Allah has created 
in this universe. If these forces are used for the welfare and 
well being of mankind it is not only permissible but 
desirable in Islam. Rather than raising obstacles in the way 
of such attempts Islam encourages them. In this connection 
Islam only demands that these forces should be used for 
purposes that are permissible and useful in the eyes of Islam. 
In other words, science aims at discovering the hidden forces 
of universe but the correct use of these forces is told by 
religion which provides proper direction and a better 
atmosphere for such attempts. Science and technology can 
be useful to mankind only if they are used on the principles 
laid down by Islam. Nobody would deny the fact that 
whereas science can be a means of welfare and material 
progress to mankind, its wrong and misdirected use can be 
disastrous for us. The example is before us. In recent years 
science has provided mankind with the means of comfort 
and ease, but at the same time its wrong use has converted 
the whole world into the hell of turmoil and disturbance. It is 
science that invented the high speed means of travel like the 
jet planes but at the same time the science is responsible of 
creating disastrous nuclear bombs, hence true benefits from 

Page 56 of 92 

it can be achieved only when it is used according to the 
principles laid down by Allah. 

The second thing to understand is that scientific discoveries 
are of two kinds. Firstly those which pertain to human 
observation. Such discoveries are never in opposition to the 
Qur'an and the Traditions. In fact, they have helped to affirm 
the Qur'an and traditions in many things which were 
difficult for people to understand. For example, the 
tremendous speed of the "Buraq" (The heavenly horse) on 
which the Prophet travelled from Makkah to Jerusalem on 
the night of Ascension, was regarded as unimaginable by the 
so-called intellectuals of that time. But science has today 
proved that the speed is a relative entity that cannot be bound 
to any limits. Secondly, there are some views that are based 
on conjectures and presumptions due to lack of knowledge, 
rather than observation and certainty. The scientists have not 
reached any definite conclusions on these matters so far. 
Such findings sometimes are opposed to the explicit views of 
the Qur'an and the traditions. In such situations the most 
proper way is to maintain firm faith in them without making 
new interpretation to the Qur'an. The scientific researches 
that clash with them should be regarded as yet inconclusive 
due to lack of knowledge about them. The more scientific 
knowledge keeps growing the more it will help to expound 
the realities described by the Qur'an and the traditions. For 
example, the scientists think that the "sky" has no physical 
existence. Obviously this hypothesis is not based on 
observation and definite proof but on the assumption that 
they have not been able to get any trace of the existence of 
the sky hence they do not accept its existence. In other words 
this hypothesis is based on "non existence of knowledge" 
rather than "knowledge of non-existence". Hence we, the 
believers in the Qur'an and the Traditions, assert with full 
confidence that this hypothesis of the scientists is not 
correct. According to the Qur'an and Tradition the skies do 
exist but due to its lack of knowledge science has not been 
able to discover it. If scientific knowledge continue to 
increase it is quite possible that the scientists realize their 
mistake and they accept the existence of the skies, just as 
they have accepted many other things which they had been 
denying earlier. The problem is that the tendency of looking 
everything in its own perspective is gradually fading away 

Page 57 of 92 

from our minds. Whenever the importance of certain things 
dominates our mind we find it difficult to remain within 
bounds. Undoubtedly, science and technology is very useful 
and is an essential branch of learning, and in the present 
times it is an inevitable requirement for the Muslim Ummah 
to survive. It is not possible to attain their due place in the 
world today without science. But this certainly does not 
mean that any hypothesis proclaimed by a scientist based on 
conjectures and individual ideas should be accepted as true 
and given the status of Divine Revelation (Wahy) and the 
door of interpolations and alterations in the Qur'an and the 
Sunnah be opened, or doubts and suspicions be given air on 
this basis, particularly when it is often observed that 
scientific views and theories are changing every day. 
It must be remembered that the case of Islam is quite 
different from that of Christianity. The latter did not have the 
very force and spirit to stand against newly arising needs and 
scientific discoveries of man. Hence science threatened it as 
a great danger. Thus, in order to uphold the prestige of the 
church, it was essential for Christianity either to oppose 
scientific achievements or make amendments in the religion 
itself. In the beginning the Roman Catholic Church adopted 
the first course. Having full power and authority on the 
people, the scientists, like Galileo, had to face tremendous 
punishments. But when the authority of church was made to 
lose its grip they had no alternatives than to make new 
interpretations and fabricate the religion itself. Hence the 
scholars of modernism adopted this way. It happened 
because the whole edifice of Christianity was erected on 
extremely unnatural and baseless grounds. Islam is a 
different religion. It is the natural religion and no sensible 
argument can challenge it. It is fully capable of fulfilling the 
needs of the time and to satisfy the demands of new 
circumstances without making any changes in the religion. 
Our belief is that the truth of Islam will flourish more and 
more with the advancement of science and scientific 
knowledge, provided that its point of view remains scientific 
in the real sense of the word and it does not give its 
conjectures the status of certainty and observation. 

Page 58 of 92 

This is what the religious scholars of Islam think. It implies that 
everything must be looked in its true perspective. It will not be 
wise to cross the limits misled by sentimental slogans. 
How strange it is that due to this moderate and absolutely 
reasonable attitude some people are constantly propagating that the 
scholars of Islam are opposed to science and technology and they 
do not like any progress in this field. We can only pray to 
Almighty Allah to bless them with common sense. Ameen. 

Page 59 of 92 



In the last few years the historical achievements attained by 
American scientists in the field of space technology, particularly 
the incident of man's landing on the moon, has attracted the 
attention of the entire world. Undoubtedly, the amazing journey of 
Apollos in to space has presented a wonderful exposure of human 
intellect. The success achieved by them is extremely valuable and a 
historical marvel from the scientific point of view. They have 
indeed demonstrated the highest accuracy of mathematical 
calculations and technological implementation of the scientific 
ideas. They are able to make prediction of extraordinary 

The first time man has examined the moon from so near through 
these spacecrafts. If a century ago somebody claimed that mail had 
reached the moon by flying in the space or that he had seen the 
earth rising from the horizon of the moon, it would have been 
considered a fabulous Story of the Arabian Nights. It is a reality 

Every phase of this journey, right from the "take off of the 
spacecraft to its successful landing on the earth, is an extremely 
amazing feat for the common man. From the 
Purely scientific point of view this journey is an achievement that 
can never be forgotten. But this is only one side of the Picture 
(Taking in view the end result of this wonderful journey reminds us 
of an incident that occurred at the time of Caliph Haroon-al- 

It is stated that a certain person sought the permission of the Caliph 
to present an astonishing performance in his court. When the 
permission was granted he erected a needle upright on the floor and 
himself stood at some distance with a few needles in his hand. 
Then he took one of those needles in the other hand, aimed at the 
needle on the floor, and threw the needle in his hand toward it. 
People saw that this needle passed through the eye of the needle on 
the floor. He repeated this performance several times and never 
missed the target even once. 

Page 60 of 92 

On seeing this astonishing feat the Caliph ordered, "Give him ten 
dinars, and punish him with ten lashes!" The courtiers asked for an 
explanation of this equally astonishing reward. The Caliph said, 
"He gets ten dinars for his accuracy of aim, truthfulness and 
ambition, as a reward. But he will get ten lashes as a punishment 
for spending his capabilities in a thing that is of no benefit to any 
one materially or spiritually." 

This incident of the prudence and wit of Haroon-al Rasheed is fully 
applicable to the space-race of the present times. In fact one feels 
obliged to commend and praise the scientists on the remarkable 
feat of landing on the moon who have set unique records of their 
technical and intellectual skill and their courage and endurance. 
But when we see how much mental, financial and physical energy 
of mankind has been spent on this and what did humanity receive 
in return, this very achievement becomes an international crime. 

Since there are several misunderstandings perplexing in the minds 
of the people we would discuss the matter in some detail. 
There is a group of simple people who think that all these attempts 
to conquer moon and space are contradictory to the views of the 
Qur'an and the tradition and (God forbid) they are a challenge to 
the authority of God. So much so that, some people have been 
heard saying, purely out of love for Islam, that all the news about 
landing on the moon are fictions and they cannot be relied upon. 
But the fact is that if the scientists of America or Russia or any 
other country reach the moon or mars or any other planet, it does 
not in any way clash with the Qur'an and the traditions, nor does it 
affect the supreme authority of God. There is not a single verse of 
the Qur'an or narration of the Prophet which denies the ascent of 
man to moon or Mars or any other planet. 

On the contrary, if those travelling in the space keep their eyes 
open to realities they will find clear signs of the truth of the Qur'an 
and the traditions. They will observe with their naked eyes the 
realities of many Islamic concepts which are made more 
comprehensible through the progress of the scientific knowledge, 
and which were previously mocked at by the blind followers of 
Rationalism. For instance, the description of the incredible speed of 
the 'Buraq' in the Holy Traditions, with reference to the 
Ascension, was regarded as fairy-tale by the so-called pioneers of 

Page 61 of 92 

rationalism. But the astronauts of today have circled around the 
world in less than an hour and thus proved that speed is something 
that can not be confined to any limits. So when the American 
scientist and astronauts can exhibit such an astonishing super speed 
through the limited powers of their mind why can't the unlimited 
power of the Cherisher and Sustainer (Allah) of this universe give 
even a higher speed, to any of His creatures. 

In short, we have firm belief, and there is nothing to shake it, that 
man is bound to salute and acknowledge the realities of the Qur'an 
and the Sunnah with the ever increasing progress of science and 
technology, if, of course, he remains within the bounds and does 
not claim his calculations to be scientific observations. The religion 
brought by the Holy Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) is not like the 
religion of Christianity which should be frightened by the progress 
of science. This is the religion which is the most symmetrical with 
human nature. It had openly proclaimed fourteen centuries ago 


— i^»'i^> \ * — v c^i 

"We shall soon show them Our signs in the horizons and within 

themselves, until it becomes clear to them that this is the Truth". 

(HaMimAs Sajdah: 53) 

Imam Razi has quoted earlier commentators to say that the 'signs 
in the Horizons' means the wonders of the skies, moon and stars 
and the elements. The phrase "We will show our signs" means that 
these wonders have no limits. Thus Allah will continue exhibiting 
new wonders in every era of time. 

On the other side there is a group among the Muslims who are so 
much dazzled with the grandeur of science that they see nothing 
more valuable, more important and worth following than throwing 
rockets on the planets. The overawed tone and longing with which 
these people talk of this type of scientific advancement gives an 
impression that for them the most fortunate and exalted and 
benefactor of mankind is the nation that has performed this 
wondrous feat, and most deprived are those who have lagged 
behind in this "sacred" race. 

Page 62 of 92 

You must have heard people saying "the world has entrapped the 
moon and planets but the Muslims are still entangled in the 
problems of Salah, fasting, marriage and divorce." This expression 
actually depicts the same mentality that the Western nation has 
surpassed all other nations in every walk of life by inventing the 
rockets and satellites, and hence the solution to all our problems 
must be sought by following the footsteps of the West. 

In fact both these trends are dangerous. We have no hesitation in 
acknowledging that this is an amazing achievement, and from the 
scientific point of view, it is a great success of man. But the 
question arises whether this "achievement" was worth attempting 
in view of the price man had to pay for it? There are many who 
take pleasure out of the success of space explorations but very few 
know what quantity of wealth was spent in each of these space 
journeys? The expenses incurred on Apollo-8 were one trillion and 
twenty billion rupees (Jang, Karachi, 14 January 1969). This 
amount was equivalent to at least twenty annual budgets and six 
years of national income of Pakistan. In other words the amount 
spent by Pakistan in twenty years and the money earned by 100 
million people of Pakistan in six years was spent on only one space 
journey. It is the amount spent only on the journey of the Apollo-8. 
The journey of Apollo-10 must have cost far more money than the 
Appalo-8. It is equal to the money that could be spent by Pakistan 
in 80 years. 

The question arises can it be the act of anyone having the slightest 
compassion for mankind to spend billion and trillions of rupees in a 
space journey in a world where people are massacred by hunger 
and poverty, where millions of people are begging for a loaf of 
bread, where countless people die for not being able to get the 
medicines required for their ailment, where about half the 
population remain deprived of education facilities? In America 
itself which has the "honor" of performing the "great achievement" 
a report was published in the same month in which one trillion and 
twenty billion rupees were spent on Apollo-8, that one out of every 
nine persons is destitute, and that: 

"Poverty is the greatest material problem of today" (Weekly 
"Time" New York, 24 January 1969, p 29) 

Page 63 of 92 

This huge expenditure on the useless probe of space in a country 
like America cannot be justified for a nation who claims to be 
sympathetic to mankind. It seems that Sa'adi had been addressing 
the astronauts of today when he said: 

You have well solved the problems of the earth 
That you are going to play with the heavens. 

If a man from the East tries to show the other side of the picture of 
space-race, it may be said that he is saying it due to his jealousy for 
Western advancement. Hence we present the comments of a 
renowned historian and thinker of the West itself on this subject. A 
very thoughtful article of a distinguished historian and philosopher 
of England Dr. Arnold Tyne Bee has been published. We are 
presenting herewith a summary of its excerpts from Pakistan Times 
of 6th. January 1969. After admitting the wondrous feat of space 
achievements he writes: 

"Even today 10% or 20% of American population comprises of 
indigent people. Looking at the world as a whole only one third of 
its increasing population is such as is getting proper food. Hence 
utilization of the economic resources of mankind is in the foolish 
pursuits of erecting the Pyramids of Egypt or landing on the moon, 
which, in themselves, are included in the list of the crimes. 

"The world of today is involved in three wars. Individual strikes 
are getting frequent, students are protesting everywhere and 
different ways of terrorism are being adopted. All this is happening 
under the disgraceful feeling that use of force is the only way to 
attract attention of people when one is offended. 

"People of Russia and America had been congratulating each other 
on their space achievements although the main cause of this 
"stupidity" had been their own rivalries. If these two political 
powers had not been in combat with each other on the small planet 
of Earth this "stupidity" would not have occurred. 

Page 64 of 92 

"From the very early days of history of human activities, the 
technical advancement and moral degradation of man are 
becoming inseparable. The history of our science and technology is 
indeed a wonderful "Tale of achievements" but the history of our 
mutual relations has been proved to be a story of grief and regrets 
on our failures. This is the moral "gap" which after 1945 A.D. has 
widened to the extent that it has opened a vast channel for disaster 
to enter." 

"In this atomic age, the priority must be given to save ourselves 
from the crime of wasting the lives of other human beings. For this 
it is essential that a Supreme government be formed on the 
universal level and all local governments be placed under it. But 
this is becoming even more difficult, than landing on the moon 
because at present Nationalism has become as sacred as an idol. To 
part with a false deity needs a greater courage and bravery in this 
world than is needed by the astronauts. 

"Next in the list of priority comes making effective arrangements 
to produce food for the population on this earth. We do not know 
the extent to which the world population would have gone by the 
time the movement of family planning gains popularity throughout 
the world. However we do know that we should not waste a single 
moment to increase the supply of food. The fast moving 
technological progress should equally speed up the productivity in 
every field. 

"These are the two most important targets before mankind while 
space adventures can not be of any service to any of them. 

"Hence the fact is that conquering of space is an absolutely 
wasteful exercise, and by spending our energies in this direction we 
are intentionally imposing on ourselves huge economic liabilities. 
We cannot, and should not ignore our economic problems at a time 
when the human race is heading fast toward starvation. 

"As to the question that, in case we put the space program at the 
bottom of our agenda and delete the preparation of war from it, 
what alternate use of the scientific knowledge of our inventors be? 

"The question has already been answered by the Japanese 
government. The researches of our scientists should be directed to 

Page 65 of 92 

explore the resources hidden in the sea instead of wasting them in 
space and war strategies. 

"The sea is within the reach of man as against the nearest planet 
from the earth. Two-third area of our planet is water and it is a 
huge treasure of the unknown resources. It has been estimated that 
there exists the greatest store of natural resources in the sea which 
remains yet unexplored. 

"This is a vast field of research for man and in addition to 
satisfying the desire for research it may also provide a surety that 
the population will not die of starvation even if it increases ten-fold 
of the current population. 

"A yellow female fish lays one million eggs during its life span, 
but under ordinary circumstances only three fully grown fish can 
be produced that would be capable of laying further eggs. But 
when Japan's "sea-farmers" tried to enhance the ability of these 
eggs artificially and nurtured the stock of eggs and protected them 
from other animals it resulted in the production of 100,000 fish 
from the eggs of one fish. 

"When Apollo-8 returned after its victorious flight I received a 
telephone call from across the Atlantic a few hours after it, "Do 
you think this is a revolutionary incidence in the history of 

My answer was 'NO'. 

"My answer could have been 'Yes' if the news of that day had 
been that humanity has suddenly regained its consciousness and it 
has formed a universal central state, and their researchers have 
discovered from the depth of the sea things that can be used by 
mankind for its collective purposes." We have yet to achieve this 
revolutionary aim, and for that the first step of the world powers 
should be to divert their resources towards the collective 
advancement of human beings instead of wasting them in space 
adventures and war weapons. If this is achieved the population of 
the entire world can be brought to the standard of living now 
enjoyed by 80% of American peoples. 

Page 66 of 92 

'This will indeed be a 'Revolutionary incidence' but this will not 
be achieved through technology alone. If one wants to reap fruits 
through the power of technology the essential condition for it is a 
spiritual revolution. This spiritual surgery is our dire need and 
without it all our recently discovered material resources would be 
useless. Even if we land on the moon without the spiritual revival 
the dust and ashes obtained from there will mock at our spiritual 
bankruptcy from which we could not get our motherland rid of." 

In this article Dr. Tyne Bee has made a wise diagnosis of the 
disease, and if you give a little thought you will know that the root 
cause of this disease is that the people tracking the heavenly bodies 
have no definite aim or any exalted motto of life. All the ways of 
their struggle have been lost in their childish desire of surpassing 
others. The result is that they have not been able to utilize their 
unlimited capabilities for conquer of this universe that could lead 
mankind to the goal of peace and tranquility. All their energy is 
being spent in combating with each other, in surpassing or 
defeating each other; and in this struggle they have overlooked 
what great harm they have inflicted on themselves. 

A race between the two parties, no matter how fast and speedy it is, 
cannot be of any benefit to humanity if it is not in the right 
direction. Tyne Bee was right in saying that spiritual surgery was 
needed to take full advantage of science. But what he does not 
know is that such a surgical treatment cannot be possible without 
submission to the greatest benefactor of mankind, Muhammad 
(Peace of Allah be upon him) who had made the return trip to 
heavenly destination far beyond the Moon, Mars, Venus and Pluto, 
and which is beyond the scientific imagination. Instead of directing 
his followers to conquer the moon he asked them to conquer the 
hearts and souls of the people. Unless the world kneels down to his 
feet and seeks guidance from Him, it will never be able to acquire 
peace and tranquility, though it may launch numerous artificial 
satellites or plant its flags on the moon or Mars or any other 
planets. After the landing on the moon all further advancement of 
science in this direction will prove more disastrous for mankind 
and only add to the uneasiness and darken the clouds of suffering 
and distress over the mankind. 

The great philosopher-poet of the East has rightly said: 

Page 67 of 92 

& a J/ — 'i-xjc^ uiU j 

"The one, who is seeking the paths of heavenly bodies, could not 
travel in the world of his own thoughts. He captured the rays of the 
sun, but could not turn his night into the dawn of life. He was so 
much involved in the perplexities of his logic that he remains 
unable to decide between the gain and loss." 

Page 68 of 92 



The Holy Qur'an has expounded the fact in many places that the 
entire universe has been created for mankind and every particle has 
been placed for the service of human beings. It stated: 

"He is (Allah) Who created for you all that is in the earth." (2:29) 

"And He (Allah) has subjugated to you all that is in the heavens 

and all that is in the earth, altogether from Him. Surely in that are 

signs for a people who reflect." (45:13) 

In these verses while describing His bounties Allah has made 
subtle indication that since all these things have been created for 
Man it is Man's duty to get knowledge and explore them by 
applying his logic and wisdom bestowed on him by Allah, for the 
benefit of Mankind. He should put to his use all resources that 
Allah has stored in the universe. There are two kinds of bounties of 
Allah created in the universe. The things that are general which 
man uses in his life, yet there are some bounties which can be 
acquired by the use of knowledge and wisdom. The Qur'an said: 

"Have you not seen how Allah has subjugated to you whatsoever is 

in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth, and He has perfected 

His blessings on you, (both) open and hidden?" (31:20) 

In other words, Allah has indeed subjugated the universe to Man 
yet it does not mean that he shall get all these blessings without 

Page 69 of 92 

striving for them and using physical and mental talents for 
achieving them. 

At another place the Holy Qur'an said: 

"Allah is He who has subjugated the sea to you that the ships may 

sail through it by His command, and that you may seek of His 

bounty and that you may offer thanks." (Q.45: 12) 

In this verse the cause for subjugation of sea has been described as 
providing it as a means of seeking Allah's blessings and bounties. 
In the Qur'an "seeking Allah's bounty" generally means "striving 
for earning the livelihood". Hence, one meaning of this verse may 
be that mankind has been given authority and power of navigation 
on the sea so that they may trade through it. Some commentators 
have, however, stated that "seeking Allah's bounty" in this verse 
does not mean trade but research and exploration of countless other 
bounties that He has created in the sea. The verse then means: "We 
have subjugated the sea for you after creating in it innumerable 
useful things so that you may seek for them and make use of 
them". Thus, every now and then the discoveries of modern 
science are making it apparent that the treasures of mineral and 
botanical products hidden in the sea are far more than those on the 

The Qur'an has explicitly pointed out at various places that even 
new bounties of this universe will get exposed as often as man 
would march forward in the way of research and exploration. For 
example, where the Qur'an has mentioned horses and mules as 
means of transport, it has further pointed out that in future there 
will come out such means of transport which man did not know at 
that stage. 

"(Allah has created for you) horses, mules and donkeys that you 

may ride on them, and (in future) He will create such things which 

as yet you don't know." (16:8) 

Page 70 of 92 

In this manner the Qur'an has pointed out to all kinds of means of 
communication to be invented till the Last Day. 

At another place it said: 

"We shall show them Our signs, in the universe and also in their 
selves until it is clear to them that this (Qur'an) is the Truth." 


This verse signifies that the exposition of Allah's attribute of 
creation will never cease to create. The new blessings and 
productions will keep appearing in every era of time till the Last 

Many more statements from the Qur'an and prophetic traditions 
can be produced on this subject, but even if these few verses are 
positively reflected upon, the reality will be exposed as broad 
daylight that if access through research, investigation, experiments 
and discoveries is made to the hidden powers of universe with 
rightful intentions and rightful methods, it is not condemnable in 
the eyes of the Quran, it is desirable. And not only has Islam not 
laid down any restriction on such scientific experiments, it has, in 
fact, encouraged them. This is the reason why Muslims have left 
lasting impressions of their scientific endeavors which will 
continue to serve as guidelines for mankind. 

However, it must be remembered that the concept of conquering 
the universe as presented by Islam is quite different from the 
materialistic concept of the West. The West has also undertaken 
the task of conquering it, and indeed in the last few years they have 
attained extraordinary successes in this field. But the first and 
fundamental difference of Islam with the West is that their 
restricted material visualization of things has deprived them of 
seeing the vast world beyond matter. Hence whatever new 
inventions are made by them are regarded as the fruits of their own 
power, intellect and labor. They do not perceive the active hand of 

Page 71 of 92 

the Creator or Master behind these discoveries. But the vision of 
Islam sees things beyond the investigations, experiments and 
discoveries and it observes the supreme power of creation of Allah 
behind them. Allah has subjugated the entire universe for mankind 
on one hand, and on the other hand He has bestowed man with the 
intellect, wisdom, power and energy through which he has been 
able to dominate the forces of this universe. Hence the teaching of 
Islam is that after the success gained in the process of subjugation 
of universe he should kneel down before his Creator and Master in 
humble submission rather than be proud and arrogant. It is Allah 
who awarded him with the honor of ruling over the entire universe. 
According to the Qur'anic teaching the call of a true Muslim on 
such occasions is: 

"Glorified be He Who has subjugated (all) this to us and we 
ourselves were not capable to do it, And surely to our Lord we 

shall return." (43:13) 

The second fundamental difference between Islam and the West 
with regard to the conquering of the universe is that the ultimate 
object of the Western efforts in this direction is the conquering of 
the universe itself. 

According to them, the aim of a man's life, is nothing more than 
gaining the maximum benefit and pleasure out of the universe and 
depart from this world. Contrary to this, subjugation of the 
universe, in the eyes of Islam, is not the final aim by itself; but it is 
a means to achieve the goal, and only a milestone on the path of a 
man's destination. The Islamic point of view is that Man gets the 
right to utilize the services of this universe only when he fulfills the 
purpose of his creation and discharges his duties rightly and 
sincerely. Almighty Allah has not subjugated this universe to man 
without purpose and the purpose is that man should perform the 
duty imposed on him with precision and honesty. This duty is 
worship and submission to Allah. 

Allah said: 

Page 72 of 92 

"And I have not created the Jinn and mankind but to worship Me". 


The third fundamental difference between the West and Islam is 
that any new force or power which man comes to possess as a 
result of his struggle for dominating the universe can be applied or 
used for any purpose that is allowed by human reason. But Islam 
teaches that the purpose of its use is determined by Almighty Allah 
who has bestowed that power to man, hence these inventions and 
discoveries can be used only for the objectives permitted by Him. 
When man determines by himself the purpose without the guidance 
of Divine Revelations these bounties of the universe may 
sometimes lead him to the path of destruction instead of giving any 
benefit to mankind. This results in the fact that despite hoisting his 
flag on the moon and Mars his own life seems to fall into the abyss 
of darkness. Thus the Islamic concept of subjugation of universe is 
more universal and comprehensive than that of the West, and more 
beneficial for Mankind. 

May Almighty Allah give us the ability to recognize its true values 
and to practice them in the right direction. (Ameen) 

Page 73 of 92 



In the year 1404 A.H a convention of Ulema (Religious scholars) 
was held in Islamabad under the auspices of the Ministry of 
Religious Affairs, Pakistan. In the open session of this convention 
the president of Pakistan, Gen. Zia ul Haq, was also present. One 
of the topics of this convention was "How to start the process of 
Ijtehad in the country?". The extempore speech of the Editor of Al- 
Balagh given on this occasion has now been published in a booklet 
by transcribing it from the Tape-recorded speech which is 
reproduced below. 

Mr. President, distinguished audience, As-salam-oAlaikum. 

I conceive that the recommendations submitted by the four 
committees of this convention in this short time are promising and 
encouraging. When this program was being announced yesterday it 
was not expected that such solid recommendations could be 
prepared in such a short time. But, on the whole, the 
recommendations prepared by all the four committees are very 
commendable and encouraging. Every person had to be a member 
of one of these committees therefore a member of certain 
committee did not get a chance to express his views before other 
committees. I, therefore, seek to express my views with regard to 
the problems that were discussed by the committees that did not 
have me as a member. 

The committee which dealt with the ways and means to enhance 
the speed of Islamization, which is the real object of this 
convention, has done a remarkable job. I fully endorse every word 
of the recommendations by this committee and also request that 
they should be given thorough consideration and be examined with 
all their intentions and spirits and immediate action should be 

Similarly the recommendations made by the Unity and Consonant 
committee are also very encouraging and in fact, if they can be put 
to practice they will play a very effective role in checking the 
epidemics of disunity and disruption. 

Page 74 of 92 

Just now I want to draw your attention to the third committee 
which has been formed in connection with the process of "Ijtehad", 
and its recommendations have been presented by Moulana 
Muhammad Malik Kandhalvi and 'Allama Syed Muhammad Razi 
Mujtahid. Since this gathering is, more or less, a representative 
gathering of Ulema (Religious scholars), I think the decisions taken 
here will have a far reaching effect. Hence I wish to state that 
contradicting misunderstandings are present about "Ijtehad" in our 
society at present. As a result at times we notice an extreme degree 
of inactivity and at other times an equal degree of over activity in 
this field. 

In my opinion, and this is not my individual or exclusive opinion 
but it is derived from the Qur'an, Hadith and verdicts of jurists of 
Islam, that "Ijtehad" is like a double- edged sword. If it is properly 
understood, and used within its limitations of fulfilling the 
conditions laid down for it, this can be a source of great treasure of 
Islamic laws and a matter of great pride for the nation. But if it is 
allowed to be wrongly used by incapable persons it will result in 
creating false concepts and irreligious movements as we read in the 
books like 'Al-milal Wan-Nahi'. Those views and claims had their 
sway for sometime but now they exist only in the pages of ancient 

The same Ijtehad can be used to find practical ways for the Muslim 
Ummah, and the same can lead to such ridiculous interpretations as 
were advanced in our country. The Qur'an said: 

"And as the thief, man or woman, cut off the hands of both." (5:38) 

This Qur'anic verse was interpreted that "thief man and thief 
woman" means "capitalists"; and "cut off their hands" signifies 
"Nationalize their industries". This interpretation has not been 
made by a person of ordinary literary status, but by a person of our 
country who is, supposed to be a renowned intellectual. 

Similarly, in this country it has been expounded through Ijtehad 
that "interest" is not forbidden, and that intoxicants are also 

Page 75 of 92 

permissible. It is through the same type of Ijtehad that they tried 
every evil of Western Civilization to make permissible; and it is 
through this that an endless chain of religious manipulations has 
been started. 

It is in this context that I have called it a double-edged sword. If it 
is not used with necessary precautions and some one starts 
attempting it without having the required proficiency he would 
open the door to distorting the religion, and would lead to extreme 
degree of misleading conceptions. 

Some people think that "Ijtehad" allows taking a decision through 
personal opinion in religious matters. This must be fully 
understood that this practice has never been regarded as "Ijtehad" 
in Islam. The one who considers it as "Ijtehad" has in fact fallen 
into great error. The door of "Ijtehad" had been opened by the Holy 
Prophet (PBUH), and the Hadith reported by Ma' az bin Jabal has 
made it clear. 

The Prophet asked Ma'az "How will you decide on a thing not 
found in the Book of Allah?" He replied, "I will follow the 
Prophetic traditions (Sunnah). The Prophet then asked, "What 
would you do if you find nothing in Sunnah?" He replied, I will do 
"Ijtehad" with my personal opinion." It is quite apparent from this 
Hadith that there is no room for "Ijtehad" in matters explicated by 
the Qur'an and the Sunnah. If someone attempts Ijtehad in such 
matters it will not be called "Ijtehad" but fabrication or distortion. 

If "Ijtehad" could be permitted in matters where explicit 
injunctions from the Qur'an and Hadith are present, there was no 
need for the advent of Prophets and Messengers. The purpose of 
Wahy (Divine Revelation) was that the right way be shown to 
people through Wahy in matters where Man cannot make the 
correct decision through his intellect. Had it been an open field for 
everyone, to do as he or she thinks proper there was no need to 
follow the Qur'an or Prophetic traditions. It would have been 
sufficient to say that people should lead their lives according to 
their personal likings, opinions and reasoning as the time and 
circumstances demand. This misunderstanding must be removed 
about the application of Ijtehad, and whatever resolutions are 
passed must fully observe this point. 

Page 76 of 92 

Sometimes, however, "Ijtehad" is not taken as a freedom of 
opinion to prevail over the Qur'an and tradition, but whenever the 
process of "Ijtehad" is discussed an impression is given that the 
Qur'an and traditions have been revealed to us for the first time 
and no work has been done in the field of interpretation and 
explanation for all these fourteen hundred years and that the 
meanings deduced by us through personal reasoning shall be 
"Ijtehad" that must be implemented. 

This concept is sometimes deliberately propagated while the fact is 
that we are not living in a vacuum but we are living in an era which 
has the background of fourteen centuries of laudable efforts in the 
field of Qur'anic learning by renowned companions of the Prophet, 
their followers, religious scholars, jurists of Islam and devoted 
personalities of the Ummah. They have spent their lives in 
devotion to the cause of exegesis of the Qur'an and interpretation 
of the Prophetic traditions, and the sacrifices they have made for 
this cause are beyond our imagination. They had to go through the 
troubles of starvation and rough clothing and poorest means of 
sustenance for this noble cause and left behind a huge collection of 
this work. Now, throwing all this collection in a dust-bin and start 
making fresh interpretations, through the agency of "Ijtehad" 
unsupported by the Quran and the Sunnah, it will be an act of 
shameful self deception. It will mean that all the collections of the 
jurists be ignored and totally a new Fiqh of Islam should be 

A sensible solution, however, that answers the new problems may 
be sought in the light of existing rules and principles derived from 
the Qur'an and traditions. This is the right application of "Ijtehad" 
in the right direction. Indeed countless problems may arise in every 
new period that are not defined by the Quran and the Prophetic 
traditions or no answer to these problems is provided by the 
available Fatawa(verdicts) of the jurists. Being within these limits 
and seeking the solutions to newer problems and understanding the 
intentions of jurists and the intentions of the Shariah is called true 
"Ijtehad" and this is the "Ijtehad" whose doors have not been 
closed to anyone so far. 

This is a sheer propaganda that the door of Ijtehad is closed. 
Nobody has ever closed it. This door has been opened by the Holy 
Prophet and shall remain open till the Last Day, and as long as this 

Page 77 of 92 

Ijtehad remains in capable hands nobody can close it. This is the 
type of Ijtehad that is needed in the present time. Countless 
problems have come up before us about whom we find no explicit 
injunctions or there are practical difficulties in their 
implementations. The door of Ijtehad is open for solving these 

Here I wish to point out that the topic of the committee has been 
phrased "How to start the process of Ijtehad in Pakistan?" The 
sentence seems to claim that the process of Ijtehad has not been 
started out so far, and now it is being started which was not in 
practice before. I wish to submit that this supposition is not correct. 
The required Ijtehad which the Muslim Ummah really needs is not 
a new thing. It was in practice before. If now an organized method 
is provided to it, it would be appreciable. But to think that the 
scholars of Islamic learning had not been doing this Ijtehad before 
is not correct. The true Ijtehad that is needed had been in process 
and should continue to be there in the future. 

What we said above was about the principles in this regard. The 
recommendation of the committee that has come before us is that a 
Board of the Ulema (The Religious scholars) be formed to carry 
out Ijtehad and present their opinions on new problems. In this 
connection, I may be allowed to point out an important Islamic 
practice. The history of fourteen hundred years of Islam reminds us 
that, Islam never formed a supreme authoritative institution or 
clergy, an institution whose opinion should be the last word 
depriving everyone the right of criticism as is the case with 
Christianity. It is in Christianity that Pope is regarded as beyond all 
errors and infallible to everything. 

The system in Islamic Ijtehad has been that no authoritative 
organization with absolute powers was ever formed. The opinion 
of the Ulema carrying out Ijtehad are publicized and are open to 
free criticism by other Ulema and ultimately the decision about 
their being right or wrong is made only on the basis of the 
collective consensus of the Ummah to accept an Ijtehad or reject it. 
Hence, if the intention of creating a Board of Ijtehad is that its 
interpretations are imposed on the Muslims as the last word, and 
other Ulema are not allowed to express their opinion against it, 
then in my opinion this is not a right objective. 

Page 78 of 92 

Another thing to be noted is that establishing an institution 
exclusively for Ijtehad at this time may have some practical 
problems and may call for some financial implications as well. 
Hence I propose that we have already got an institution by the 
name of "Council for Islamic Ideology" and another institution by 
the name of "Institute of Islamic Research", this responsibility may 
be entrusted to them. As has been proposed by the committee, a 
comprehensive list of the problems which need Ijtehad be prepared 
and handed over to these institutions. However the officials of 
these institutions should not limit these considerations to 
themselves but they should invite other Ulema and scholars of the 
country to express their opinion before a decision is announced by 
the Council for Islamic Ideology. It will reduce the financial 
burden on the one hand, and on the other the duplication of work 
will be eliminated. Otherwise the new Board for Ijtehad in the 
presence of the Council of Islamic Ideology may give birth to new 
problems. If a difference arises between the two institutions a third 
committee or institution will be needed to remove it. Hence it will 
be better if the Council of Islamic Ideology or Institute of Islamic 
Research are entrusted the work of preparing a list of such 
problems and then call for the renowned, qualified jurists and 
devoted scholars of Islam for a joint session, and take guidance 
from them and then arrive at a unanimous conclusion. 

It has been reported with authentic sources in the tradition of 
Majm'a-al-Zawaid by Hadhrat Ali bin Abi Talib that the Prophet 
(PBUH) was asked "We may be faced with problems, after you, in 
which there may be neither a command nor prohibition from you. 
What should we do in a situation like this?" In quite a few words 
the Prophet provided us with the right way. He said, "Consult the 
jurists (Legal experts) and the devotees cognizant with religion, 
and do not impose individual opinion as if it was the collective 
view of the Ummah". He thus advised to call for people having two 
qualifications that is, they are jurists and devoted to the cause of 
Islam, consult them and then reach a conclusion. 

If the Council of Islamic Ideology and Institute of Islamic Research 
keep these principles in view and consult the Ulema when needed, 
then publish their opinion allowing open freedom of criticism to 
other Ulema. Anyone having opposing views should be allowed to 
express himself. In this way the process of Ijtehad can continue in 

Page 79 of 92 

the same manner as it had been continuing over the last fourteen 
years. In case we adopt self conceived means and methods we 
cannot hope to make the desired progress. 

In the end I wish to submit that any such institution if formed under 
the supervision of the State it is essential to take into consideration 
the fact that governments keep changing and rulers are replaced. 
Hence it should be formed on the principles which keep them 
practicable under all circumstances. Thus the selection of the 
workers should be made on the basis of knowledge and devotion 
rather than on political grounds. If this factor is effectively 
incorporated in the basic terms of reference of such institutions, the 
process of Ijtehad will, by the Grace of Allah, be a source of 
blessing to us, and we shall be able to guard against the dangers 
which could be created by the wrong use of Ijtehad in our society. 

With these reservations I endorse the recommendations of the 

Page 80 of 92 



An Answer To A Letter: 

Question: Respected Moulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani Sahib, 

Assalam-o-Alaikum wa Ralunatullah-wa Barakatuhu. 

My humble self had recently had a chance to read some older 
editions of your esteemed journal "Al-Balagh". In the issue of 
March 1971, I found the following suggestions under clauses 17, 
18 on page 10. 

(17) Compromising relations and amicable treatment could be 
established with such non-Muslim states as may not be hostile to 
Islam and Muslims. 

(18) Agreements made with other countries shall be honored if 
they are permissible under Islamic Law, otherwise such agreements 
will be declared dissolved. 

From these clauses it is apparent that non-Muslim states can retain 
their non-Muslim status in the presence of an Islamic state if they 
are non-hostile or hold a treaty or agreement. 

In other words, the Islamic State will not wage Jihad for 
propagation of Islam against them, even though, I think, peaceful 
preaching of Islam would continue in them also, and any 
interference therein by a non-Muslim state shall be an open proof 
of hostility. Anyway, my humble self is in full agreement with both 
these clauses, because my view is that the real job of Muslims is 
preaching of Islam throughout the world rather than attaining a 
power for total elimination of unbelievers from the earth and 
establishing an Islamic State everywhere (which is the view of 
Moududi sahab). 

However attempts (through Aggressive Jihad) must be made 
against hostile and non- compromising non-Muslim states to 
subdue them in order to be safe from their mischief. 

Page 81 of 92 

But in the issue of June 1981 in the critique of the book 
"Mukhtasar Seerat-e-Nabawiyah" by Moulana Abdul Shakoor 
Lakhnavi, after quoting the following excerpt from the book: 

"The religious obligation of Jihad is only for the oppressed and for 
eradicating cruelties .. . .in other words Jihad is the name of 
protection of self determination..., hence considering the battles of 
the Prophetic era as devoid of defensive and protective measures is 
not only irreligious but is illogical also." 

You have commented, 

"From these sentences it appears that only Defensive Jihad is 
permissible while the real purpose of Jihad is propagation of 
Islam" which means "To establish the supremacy of Islam and 
damage the authority of the infidels". 

" For this purpose taking initiative for Jihad is not only permissible 
but at times obligatory and a means for reward from Allah. Apart 
from the Qur'an and traditions, the entire history of Islam is full of 
such Jihads. We need not make excuses and adopt apologetic 
attitude simply for the objections coming from non-Muslims. No 
single person has ever been forced to accept Islam nor is it 
permitted; otherwise the Islamic institution of 'Jizyah' would have 
been meaningless. Muslims' sword has, however, been raised to 
establish the grandeur of Islam. If anybody wants to stay in the 
darkness of disbelief; he may do so, but the rule of Allah must 
prevail in the world created by Him. Muslims wage Jihad to raise 
the name of Allah and to subdue His rebels. Why should we feel 
shy in expressing this fact before people whose entire history is full 
of blood-shed for colonialism, and who have massacred millions of 
people simply to satisfy their lust and greed." 

I wish to make two submissions to you about this critique. 

Firstly in my opinion it is wrong to deduce from the extracted 
sentences of Moulana Abdul Shakoor that in his opinion only 
defensive Jihad is permissible, while he has also written that "Jihad 
is the name of protection of self determination" which can include 
every offensive Jihad. 
Moulana Thanavi has stated: 

Page 82 of 92 

"Jihad is meant to defend Islam and protect self determination 

with this it should not be thought that initiative for Jihad should not 
be taken. The purpose of an initiative itself is this defense and 
protection because there is great chance of resistance. It is for 
checking this resistance that Jihad is obligated. In short the defense 
that provides a motive for Jihad is general against defense for 
existing situation and defense for anticipated resistance in future." 
(Al-Afadat-alYoumiya, Letter No: 497 voL 6). 

Moulana Abdul Shakoor must have been aware of many 
Aggressive Jihads of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), and hence he 
cannot call such Jihads as unlawful. He, however, considers all the 
Jihads of the Prophet as Defensive and Protective because the 
purpose of all of them had been to break the force of Pagans of 
Arabia for the defense and protection of the integrity of Islam and 
Muslims so that the Religion of Truth may gain power in the 
region. When this purpose was achieved Allah revealed verse 3 of 
Surah Ma'idah on the occasion of the Last Hajj: 

"This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so 
fear them not, but fear you Me. This day have I perfected your 
religion for you and completed My blessing on you, and have 
approved Al-Islam as Din (Code of life) for you". 

Obviously the Moulana has meant to include both Aggressive and 
Defensive Jihads under 'Protection of integrity of Islam." 
However, it would have been better if he had further classified it to 
avoid misunderstanding by the reader. 

The second thing, which had specially been the prime cause of 
writing this letter, is to express my views about your critique so 
that you may either endorse or contradict it. (In case of 
contradiction, arguments of the Qur'an and Sunnah will be 
needed). My views will become clear to you from the following: 
You have given the real purpose of Aggressive Jihad as 
Propagation of Message of Allah which, according to you, is to be 
manifested with supremacy of Islam and establish its grandeur and 
breaking that of disbelief and Paganism so that the rule of Allah 
may prevail in a world created by Him. For this to understand we 
must first determine the meaning of the Kalimah of Allah 
(Message of Allah). In view of my humble self every reasonable, 

Page 83 of 92 

true, correct and just word is the Kalimah of Allah or the Kalimah 
of the Truth. To make it dominating over every unreasonable, false, 
incorrect and unjust thing or to make people believe the meanness 
and evils of the latter and elegance and grace of the former is the 
Kalimah of the Truth or the Kalimah of Allah. Supremacy of a 
thing signifies that it exists in a dominant trait. For example, 
domination of ignorance means the illiteracy of majority of people, 
dominance of 'world' means that most of the people are involved 
in worldly pursuits and do not discriminate between the lawful and 
forbidden things. The domination of the West means that majority 
of people have adopted Western civilization and style of life, 
domination of Hanafiyat means majority of people belonging to 
Hanafi school of thought, etc. etc. Thus, supremacy or domination 
of Islam would mean that most people are its true followers, and 
this (religious) domination of Islam is that is required. If 'Kalimah 
of Allah' is taken to mean Islam, then the propagation of Allah's 
Kalimah would mean similar type of domination of it. The method 
of acquiring such domination cannot be anything but convincingly 
preaching and producing exemplary character of the preachers and 
their people. This is what can cause a revolution in the hearts and 
minds of non-Muslims. This cannot be achieved by making them 
the subjects of an Islamic State, because in a situation like this the 
inferiority complex and the subjective feelings would to some 
extent prohibit them to listen to the Kalimah. Hence, Aggressive 
Jihad does not result in domination of the religion of Islam but in 
that of a political domination of Muslims, and it is their own 
domination that is established and not that of Islam. The grandeur 
of Islam means that Muslims practice the teachings of the Qur'an 
and Prophetic Traditions in Toto. For a political domination and 
grandeur their being even good Muslims is not essential, and it 
does not even result in the establishment of Rule of Allah on the 
world created by Him. As the non-Muslims would continue to 
abide by their entire life style after paying "Jizyah". Intoxicants 
and pork would not be prohibited for them nor would they be 
stoned to death for rape. Their family laws would remain in place 
and adultery would remain unrestricted. If for some reasons the 
majority of non- Muslim citizens did not embrace Islam this 
political domination will continue only as long as the Islamic state 
is powerful. In case it gets weakened the non-Muslim citizens will 
rebel against the state and take even undue revenge of their 
previous subjugation as happened in Spain or is happening in India 

Page 84 of 92 

which has been more intensified after the division of the sub- 

I certainly do not mean that Aggressive Jihad should never be 
done. Rather, I believe that Jihad is obligatory against hostile, non- 
compromising, non-Muslim states if Muslims have enough power 
to carry it out, so that their force is broken and they do not obstruct 
the preaching of Islam. Aggressive Jihad is not advisable against 
those non- hostile and compromising non-Muslim states who allow 
preaching of Islam in their territories particularly these days when 
territorial subjugation is generally condemned in the world, 
contrary to the times when capture of land was common, it was a 
credit to the attribute of the kings and rulers. The Aggressive 
Jihads of the major part of Islamic history all belong to the same 
period. However, Muslims must attain their martial superiority and 
keep expanding it so that non-Muslim states remain subdued "for 
fear of Jihad", to say nothing of actual Jihad. The Qur'an also 
commands to acquire and maintain the military strength. In the past 
despite the common practice of fighting for victory, earlier 
victories of Muslims were distinguished from those of other 
nations. Victories of other nations were meant only to show their 
strength and grandeur, and, in your terminology, to fulfill their lust 
and greed. But Muslims did not have colonialist intentions (except 
for Arabia, Iran and Rome where expansionism was somewhat 
required). But their main intention was Propagation of the Message 
of Allah through preaching and inviting to this message. The safest 
way of doing it, at that time, was expansion of state. 

Hence Qari Tayyab has said, "The companions (of the Prophet) 
apparently waged wars but their aim used to be propagation of the 
Message of Allah. If their aim had been territorial expansion they 
would not have made treaties allowing the opponents to continue 
their rule and only permit the Muslims to preach Islam 
unobstructed. They were assured that no one will be forced to 
accept Islam. People will be free to accept or reject it. Those who 
accepted such a treaty no concern was shown to them. If territorial 
expansion was aimed at such a treaty would not have been needed 
and their country would have been captured.... Any way when non- 
Muslims became bound by a treaty or agreement or became 
subjects they were let free because the real purpose was 
propagation of the Kalimah of Allah to the extent of preaching" 
(Qari Tayyab and his lectures. Part I, pp 237, 238.) 

Page 85 of 92 

I have underlined my thoughts and those that were in agreement 
with mine to make it easy for you to reply. "I hope you are feeling 

Yours humbly, 

Syed Badr us Salam, Jeddah. 

Answer from Moulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani: 

Respected Sir, 

Asslam-o-Alaikum wa Rahmatullah-wa- Barakatuhu. 

I am in receipt of your esteemed letter. Whatever you have written 
about Jihad can be summarized as this "If a non-Muslim state 
allows for preaching Islam in its country, Jihad against it does not 
remain lawful." If this is what you mean, my humble self does not 
agree with it. Obstruction in the way of preaching Islam does not 
mean only a legal obstacle, but greater power or domination of a 
non-Muslim state against Muslims is by itself a great obstacle in 
the propagation of Islam. There are no legal restrictions in most of 
the countries today on preaching Islam, but since their grandeur 
and authority is established in the world, it has led to developing a 
universal feeling which forms a greater obstacle than the greatest 
legal binding in the way of free propagation of Islam. 

For this reason the most important purpose of Jihad is to break this 
grandeur so that the resulting psychological subordination should 
come to an end and the way of accepting the Truth becomes 
smooth. As long as this grandeur and domination persists, the 
hearts of people will remain subdued and will not be fully inclined 
to accept the religion of Truth. Hence Jihad will continue. The 
Qur'an said: 

Here, killing is to continue until the unbelievers pay Jizyah after 
they are humbled or overpowered. If the purpose of killing was 

Page 86 of 92 

only to acquire permission and freedom of preaching Islam, it 

would have been said "until they allow for preaching Islam." But 

the obligation of Jizyah and along with it the mention of their 

subordination is a clear proof that the purpose is to smash their 

grandeur, so that the veils of their domination should be raised and 

people get a free chance to think over the blessings of Islam. 

Imam Razi has written the following commentary on this verse: 

"The purpose of "Jizyah" is not to let the unbelievers stay in their 
contumacy against Islam but sparing their lives to give them a 
chance for a time during which they may hopefully get convinced 
of the truth of Islam and embrace it. So when an unbeliever is 
given time wherein he would be observing the respect and honor of 
Islam, and hearing the arguments of its validity, and also observing 
the baselessness of disbelief, these things would convince him to 
turn towards Islam. This, in fact, is the real purpose of legalizing 

The other question worthy of notice is: Do we find an example that 
the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions ever sent any missionary 
groups in other countries before Jihad and waited for their reaction 
to allow or disallow the missionary work? Did they go for Jihad 
only when they were refused to carry out the missionary work for 
Islam? Was any mission sent to Rome before attacking them? Was 
any attempt made to avoid Jihad against Iran and did they contend 
on seeking a permission for preaching Islam for that purpose? 
Obviously it was not so. Thus there can be no other conclusion that 
only a permit for missionary activities was not the aim. If that 
would have been the only aim many of the bloody combats could 
be stopped only on one condition that no obstacle would be placed 
in the way of the mission of Islam. But at least in my humble 
knowledge there has not been a single incident in the entire history 
of Islam where Muslims had shown their willingness to stop Jihad 
just for one condition that they will be allowed to preach Islam 
freely. On the contrary the aim of Muslims as declared by them in 
the battle of Qadsia was, "To take out people from the rule of 
people and put them under the rule of Allah". Similarly, the Qur'an 

Page 87 of 92 

"And (you O Believers) fight them until persecution is no more and 
the Din is all for Allah." (8:39) 

In the exegesis of this verse my reverend father Mufti Muhammad 
Shafi has written: 

"The meaning of religion is "Authority and domination". Thus the 
meaning of this verse would be that Muslims should continue until 
the Muslims are safeguarded against their contumacy, and the 
religion of Islam becomes a dominating power so that it offers 
protection to Muslims from the atrocities and mischiefs of others." 
He further said: 

"The nutshell of this explanation is that Jihad against the enemies 
of Islam is obligatory on Muslims until the danger of their mischief 
or evil- doings is over, and the domination of Islam is established 
over all other religions. Since this will occur only near the end of 
the world, the command of jihad remains till the last day." (Ma'arif 
ul Qur'an Vol 4, Pg33) 

In short, my humble self is of the view that the purpose of Jihad is 
not just to get the right of missionary activities in any country, but 
it aims at breaking the grandeur of unbelievers and to establish that 
of Muslims. As a result no one will dare to show any evil designs- 
against Muslims on one side and on the other side, people subdued 
from the grandeur of Islam will have an open mind to think over 
the blessings of Islam. Factually, this aims at safeguarding Islam. It 
is for this reason that the scholars who have called Jihad "A 
Protection" must be looked in the above context. But the basic 
element of this "protection" is to break the grandeur of unbelievers 
and establish the authority of Islam. Hence this basic element 
cannot be excluded from it. I think that all Ulema (Religious 
scholars) have established the same concept about the purpose of 

Moulana Idrees Kandhalvi stated: 

"By commanding Jihad Allah does not mean that all the 
unbelievers be killed outright, but the aim is that the religion of 
Allah should dominate the world, and Muslims live with honor and 
dignity, and obey and worship Allah in peace and tranquility and 
there be no danger from unbelievers to interfere in the religion of 

Page 88 of 92 

Islam. Islam is not in enmity with the personal existence of its 
enemies. It resists such a grandeur and power that may become a 
threat for Islam and Muslims." (Seerat-ul-Mustafa vol: 2, p. 388) 

At another place he writes: 

"The implication of this verse is an obligation imposed on Muslims 
to fight against the unbelievers till the disorder and mischief cease 
to exist and the religion of Allah becomes supreme. By 'mischief, 
in this verse, is meant the mischief anticipated from the grandeur 
and power of disbelief. And "The religion is all for Allah" means 
the exhibition and domination of religion, while in another verse it 
is stated, 

^i& cglM6^s5 '*£± k^'-i^j-^Gi 

that is, the religion of Islam should gain so much domination and 

power that it may not be subdued by the power of infidelity and the 

religion of Islam becomes fully secure from the mischief and 

danger of disbelief (Ibid voL 2, p. 386) 

If the need for Jihad was abandoned just on getting the permission 
of Tableegh (Missionary activities), then we see that Muslims 
already have this permission in most of the non -Muslim countries 
of the world (It is a pity that this permission is not given in some 
Muslim countries) which implies that Muslims should never have 
to lift the sword. As a result disbelievers may establish and hoist 
flags of grandeur all over the world and their awfulness and 
supremacy on the people would stay dominating. The policies will 
be theirs, the commandments will be theirs, ideologies will be 
theirs, views will be theirs and the strategies will be theirs, yet the 
Muslims would have to be contended with the permission for their 
missionaries to enter those countries. The question arises how 
many people would be prepared to listen to the Muslims or give a 
serious thought to their speeches and writings in an atmosphere 
where disbelief had established its grandeur and awe throughout. 
How can the efforts of Muslim missionaries be effective in an 
atmosphere where anti-Islamic doctrines are being spread on the 
strength of political power with full vigor, and their propagation 
carried out with means not possessed by Muslims? 

Page 89 of 92 

If however, Islam and Muslims attain such a power and grandeur 
against which the power and grandeur of disbelievers be subdued 
or at least it may be unable to create sedition and mischief 
mentioned above, then, of course, mutual compromise through 
peace treaties with non-Muslim countries is not against injunctions 
of Jihad. Like wise as long as the required capabilities for breaking 
the grandeur of disbelief are not possessed by Muslims, peace 
agreements with other countries, along with all efforts to 
accumulate the sources of power, are indeed lawful. In other 
words, there can be two types of agreement with non-Muslims. 

1) Mutual compromise and peace agreements can be made with 
countries that have no power which could threaten the 
grandeur and domination of Muslims. This will be enforced 
as long as they do not become a threat to the Muslims again. 

2) If Muslims do not possess the capability of "Jihad with 
power" agreement may be made till the power is attained. 
My article published in March, 1971 as referred to by you, 
pertains to these particular types of agreements. The excerpts 
of the article published in June, 1981 pertain to the state 
where the grandeur of unbelievers dominates over the 
Muslims. Hence your expression that, "Aggressive Jihad is 
obligatory against hostile, and non-compromising non- 
Muslim states subject to capability, so that their power 
breaks and they do not form obstacles in the way of Muslim 
Missionary works. Jihad is not advisable against non-hostile 
and compromising non-Muslim states who allow freedom of 
missionary activities" It is correct if it means what I 
explained above. But if it means that just by permitting 
missionary activities a non-Muslim state becomes 'non- 
hostile and compromising' and Jihad against them does not 
remain lawful or desirable, then in my view this is not 
correct. Arguments in favour of my view have already been 

As for your deliberation that "... Particularly these days 1 when 
territorial expansion is generally condemned, contrary to the times 
when conquering the land was common, which was regarded as a 
credit to the attribute of the kings and rulers. The Aggressive 
Jihads forming the major parts of Islamic history all belong to the 
same era." With all the respects for you I strongly condemn it, 
because, if this is taken to be correct it would mean that Islam does 

Page 90 of 92 

not have a measure to determine a thing as good or bad. If a bad 
thing is counted as an "essential attribute" at the particular time 
Islam would begin to march on the footsteps of this practice and 
when people begin to condemn it at another time Islam would also 
follow the suit. The question is whether Aggressive battle is by 
itself is commendable or not? If it is, why the Muslims should stop 
simply because territorial expansion in these days is regarded as 
bad? And if it is not commendable, but deplorable, why Islam did 
not stop it in the past? Did it continue to practice because this was 
regarded as a creditable attribute of the kings"? 

In my humble opinion this interpretation of the Aggressive Jihad of 
Islamic history is extremely incorrect and far away from the facts. 
Even in those days when this thing was considered to be a 
creditable "Attribute of the kings" aggressive Jihads were waged 
not because it was customary for that period of time but because it 
was truly commendable for establishing the grandeur of religion of 
Allah. There were other "Attributes of the kings" that in the 
excitement of victory they never made any distinction between 
women, children and old people when persecuting them. But Islam 
did not encourage it just because it was customary. On the contrary 
Islam not only framed such military rules and regulations but also 
practically enforced them as could not even be imagined by the 
"kings". These were a matter of great surprise and rather 
unbelievable for the people who had not only become used to the 
barbarism of those kings but also became their admirers. 

Aggressive Jihad is lawful even today for the purpose it was lawful 
in those days. Its justification cannot be veiled only because the 
peace-loving inventors of Atom Bombs and Hydrogen Bombs label 
it as "Expansionism" and resent those who have put the chains of 
slavery around the necks of the people of Asia and Africa. They are 
still bleeding under these heavy chains. 

With due apologies, I may point out that it seems to me the result 
of the grandeur of the paganism that people have fixed their 
standard of good and bad on the basis of the propaganda which 
produces a lie as truth and truth as lie and then causes it to work 
into the minds of people to the extent that, to say nothing of non- 
Muslims, the Muslims themselves are overawed and inclined to 
adopt an apologetic attitude. If breaking such grandeur of 
falsehood and evil comes under the definition of "Expansionism" 

Page 91 of 92 

we should venerate the blame of this expansionism with complete 
self-confidence, rather than stand humble before them as though 
saying, "when you thought that Aggressive Jihad was good we 
practiced it, but since you have started condemning it in your 

books and only in books We have also forbidden it on 


My humble self can never agree with this way of thinking. 

Humbly yours, 

Muhammad Taqi Usmani. 

Page 92 of 92